Origins of life
September 17, 2005 at 4:07 pm #1913
I’ve joined here a few minutes ago. I’ve no impression to give other people, other than letting you people know that I am NOT A BIO STUDENT. I’m a civil engg undergrad student from India. I’ve recently been taking an interest in biology.
But you know, for the past one year I’ve been thinking of survival (as in survival of the fittest). I’ve come to independently think that every species on this earth tries to satisfy a requirement of survival. Confusing?! Well, in other words, evolution progressed in such a manner so as to NOT kill us, but make us somehow survive (or live), and then increase our chances of further survival (or surviving further). Still confusing?! Well, I think it serves to convey my idea.
I really want some one to comment about this thought seriously. Can this be true?
September 17, 2005 at 5:39 pm #29651
Read darwin, and maybe thorndike’s law of effect.
September 17, 2005 at 8:28 pm #29659AriaParticipant
My name is Aria. I am a 16yr old high school student and I am also very interested in Biology 😀 . I read your idea about “survival of the fittest” and while it is a popular and understandable theory it’s an impossibility. The theory of survival of the fittest suggests that we change as our environments change to help us “survive” as well as body parts or functions found useless in a period of time are eliminated and therefor we evolve. This cannot happen. I would like to explain it all for you but it is very complicated. I recommend you rent or buy the movie “Unlocking The Mystery of Life” It will teach you why your idea is not possible and you will learn alot of new and interesting facts. I have seen it a few times and still everytime I watch it I learn new things.
September 17, 2005 at 8:39 pm #29660AriaParticipant
This is Aria again.
I just remembered the theory which proves your idea wrong. It is called “Irreducible Complexity”. Micheal Behe wrote a book called Darwins Black Box. I haven’t read it because i hate reading 🙄 but you might find it interesting.
September 17, 2005 at 11:28 pm #29662
Aria, I believe deostroll was referring more to behavioral changes than biological which is why I recommended that he read about the law of effect.quote :
Did your biology teacher tell you this?[/quote]
September 18, 2005 at 12:03 am #29665
First, welcome deostroll. Your question is not real clear, but from what I understand, you seem to take the whole thing upside down.quote :
Evolution did not progress or anything. Organisms are evolving, but the set of rules are the same since the first living things appeared on earth. And the organisms indeed evolved trying to survive as long as possible, and if possible to find some time to prepare a next generation. But there is no such thing as an increased facility to survive as the time goes. It may seem so, but this is just because organism evolved to survive and the one which have difficulties in that task disappeared in the last few billions year (along with some other which probably as good at surviving but where unlucky enough to meet circumstances they could not overcome like volcanoes, comet crash etc…) Just to say that our chance of survival do not increase as time goes, evolution is an ongoing process, and chance of survival are challenged all the time (environment changes, increased competition by other species evolving and competing with the other… It’s a permanent arms race).
And @ Aria:
Behe and friends are creationnists. Irreducible complexity and Intelligent design belong to the set of almost (but not quite) scientific disguise creationnist is trying to take to acquire a varnish of repectability. Now that I am sure that you know that, I do not mind if this is your belief, but be prepared to be rebuffed by real scientists (the one who think that experiments can be carried out, and that ideas that cannot be tested should not be considered as science, but as belief) who dislike the mix of science and creed.
September 18, 2005 at 4:38 pm #29678
Actually I view life from another perspective. It may either be something really cool or somethng down right absurd.
Firstly, to everyone already here, if possible provide links to free resources (like articles etc) on the web. It might help me (and others like me) to get a grasp about this subject, or so I assume 🙄 . Anyway, I don’t want to talk anymore about how to learn biology.
Secondly, I may be rather vague at how I state things here. I believe in something, I feel, which is really strange. I may be stubborn in my views at the moment, but my main point was in trying to somehow find a rational explanation to life; which was why I stumbled over the idea of survival. I don’t really mind if anyone says it is ridiculous; just make me believe I am wrong, ok. So let us have no ego problems on this note.
Like mithrilhack suggested even I believe I am more into behaviour than biology. However, I would not want to comment about it; I am still unsure about what actually I’m interested in. So if you find this annoying – I apologize.
Coming back to the main point. I’ve tried to answer questions related to certain emotions like fear, love, etc. How does behaviour start? How does an emotion start? How did a species become intelligent about their own feelings?
Okay, consider this example. Take the case of stray dogs. I have not really done this experiment. I’m only predicting outcomes here. If you raise your hand to mimic the gesture of throwing a stone, notice what happens – the dogs takes caution. It runs. Now let me raise your curiosity further: suppose this dog for some reason has not had exposure to humans or other dogs at all since birth. It is some how trying to live, and it is doing rather well at that. Now, out of the blue, let some human being mimic the gesture of throwing the stone at him. What will happen now?
I predict the dog will take to its heels.
Now why don’t disprove me and explain this in the context of evolution. It would really help.
One other fact of life. This time consider new born babies. As soon as infants are out of their mother’s womb, they are cute silent creatures to look at, until they fall hungry. The mother then gives them their breast.Now IT IS A PERFECTLY NORMAL THING. But strangely they know how to suckle as well. Isn’t that food for thought? How do they know?
What is the issue with the idea of survival here? Say that the infant did not have the software to suckle. What then? Would it live? ❓
September 18, 2005 at 5:33 pm #29680
Ok, i’m nopt sure you understand what survival of the fittest actually means. It basically means that the genes that have more offspring will live more than the genes of those that have less or no offspring.
About your example with the dog: either that or the dog will attack the person. This is simply a reflex, the dog is trying to defend himself, as he can detect that the human is trying to hurt him. Here is a contraexample: if you some strange animal that you have never seen before toss a rock at you, don’t you run? 🙄
About the baby.. Again, knowing a little biology will kill this argument from a start. How does a bird know how and when to build a nest? It is an instinct, a sum of unconditioned reflexes. Undonditioned reflexes are characteristic to the species and are basic thing we need to survive and perpetue the species.I remember reading an anatomy book a few months
ago that clasified memory into memory you are born with(and gave exactly your example), short-term and long-term memory. Now, although this is not correct, it may help you understand a bit..
Secondly: NOT BEHE AGAIN!!! That guy and his book haunt me. Can you believe i have actually read the first pages of his book, as everyone from my a maths teacher to a priest told me it will disproove religion some time back? It is totally nonsense and it totally disproves the basic rule of any debate: balancing arguments. If i say bill gates is satan(see my post in off-topic 😀 ) and comes someone that keeps saying: not true, not true i win the debate. The key mistake that Behe and other “scientists” like him make is that in their endless quest to prove that evolution has little evidence they forget that their BELIEF has absolutely no evidence. It is absuletly ok if you choose to believe that God created the world and not to believe in evolution, it is your choise. But please, do not call it science…
September 19, 2005 at 9:46 am #29694TyranParticipant
What is “thorndike’s law of effect”?
September 19, 2005 at 1:27 pm #29697iri_blackParticipant
Thorndike law of effect denotes the motivation for individuals who tend to repeat and quickly learn those reactions which are accompanied or followed by a satisfying effect, and he tends not to repeat and, hence, not learn those responses which are accompanied or followed by an annoying state of affairs.
September 19, 2005 at 4:42 pm #29701quote MrMistery:
Survival of the fittest: This is how I register the concept: only those species survive which are able to suitably adapt to changes or pressures in the environment; the rest die out. I hope this is correct. Someone please correct me if it is wrong. I was not meaning to start a conflict. This is an earnest attempt to simply verify my concepts. 😆
I wasn’t talking about survival of the fittest. The key emphasis was on survival – the impulse to stay alive and not simply die or self-destruct or commit suicide.
I figure the infant has the necessary software (to suckle) because that it seems is the only way it would live. Without it, the infant is in danger. I believe this is evolutionary. However, I can’t seem to answer why it is so?. I was hoping there would be some answer or some kind of wisdom linked to this.
It is not about survival of the fittest. It is about staying alive. I figure people are most likely to link this with religious thoughts. I’m not keen on that either!
September 19, 2005 at 6:21 pm #29713
Survival of the fittest refers to individuals, not species. But it is almost Ok.
As our brains evolved, it became engraved in our brain to suck the milk right after birth, because by natural selection the individuals that did that had more off-spring, i was tempted to say. Then i realised what complete rubbish that was- Lamarkism.
How did unconditioned reflexes take birth?
I had a discussion with this a long time ago with my teacher, and today with my girlfriend which probably knows more biology than me. The result we reached: we don’t really know. We know they are vital to the survival of the species, we know they are characteristic to the specis and we know we all have them. But how did they appear? My girlfriend’s position is by evolution. I say this can not be since it has Jean Baptiste de Lamarck written all over it. Plus weknow that unconditioned reflexes are indispensable to life. I say they appearead along with the organ. How? By a geentic accident? Impossible… Maybe i lack the knlowledge or simply we don’t know…
So, sorry, i can’t tell you. Caught totally off-guard for this kind of question. I’ll do some research
September 20, 2005 at 6:37 am #29746TyranParticipant
I’d have to say I agree with your girlfriend, our innante responses arose through evolution. This could be debated for a long time, with no real answer coming out of it though. Maybe these have somehow become “scared” onto the brain? but who really knows?
September 25, 2005 at 1:01 pm #29934
I’d like to simply somehow endorse faith into this idea of survival. By now it must be clear to all that it is not survival of the fittest I’m talking about, but rather it is about staying alive.
I can’t remember how exactly I got myself thinking about survival in the beginning, but ever since that happened, I started to take a new perspective of life. And according to my perspective I feel we are here simply out of coincidence. Life on earth is just a big coincidence.
I am sure people are surely going to disagree on this note, but really I do not mean to rouse a conflict because I stated something entirely rude – completely against religious ethics. This should not make people mad or think that I am bogus and hence condemn me. Rather I want people to be conscious of their own lives (the human race as a whole) and then do everything that possibly justifies its existence.
Well, I guess I was just doing that, and that was when I thought about love. Love is something universal as far as life on earth is concerned. All species exhibit this trait. A very good example is maternal affection – the love of a mother towards the offspring. The mother protects the offspring from possible threat and sometimes may even put her life on risk for the survival of her offspring.
This is a vital thing for everything that survives on earth. Just imagine if there was no such thing like love would we be alive? Would there be any meaning and purpose for survival, or simply staying alive?. My argument is not that love justifies our survival on earth; it is simply that love was something essential for life to continue on the face of earth.
This argument somehow supports my idea that all life on earth has to essentially satisfy a requirement of staying alive.
There is more of such thoughts to come. There is a lot more of what we need to know. I am a kind of veteran thinker of such abstract concepts. And I try to use whatever my knowledge of evolution. I would like anyone to debate this idea.
Lastly, are there people who are teachers here? Because honestly I feel people who possess a sound knowledge of the concepts of biology should interact. I simply think it is something vital for the community of biology-thinkers.
September 25, 2005 at 2:25 pm #29937mattyogoParticipant
Well I have to be frank, that I do not really see the argument here..
To me it is of course, that everything must posess the will to survive as the most important trait.. if something would not want to survive, it would make no effort to do so (like eat for example).. and thus would die out. The point of everything on earth, every living thing is most basically wanting to stay alive…
In the case of mothers, I would say, that this is preceded by the will to keep the species alive (which is why it will sacryfice itself for its offspring).
It is just my two cents about the matter…
September 25, 2005 at 3:30 pm #29938
My 2 cents:
– The importance of Love for Life: none. If some animals that invest a lot in child rearing maybe put their life at risk to protect their investment, many live beings (plants, bacteria, animals) just throw their gametes in the wild hoping for them to meet the right one, and later on make their living without any help from parents. Same things for social insects: They will rather protect the mother queen than the larvae….
The selfish genes theories, even if too gene-centered to be true in my opinion, probably have some good insight into why some animals would give more importance in offspring survival than others.
-Will to survive: Do not even think about it. There is nothing like will in most live organisms. Be carefull not to project your feeling/emotions to the rest of biology! Antropomorphism is a dangerous way to go if you want to become a good scientist (this is also true for the above). Live beings do not desire to survive, they just do. Those who are not adapted or have inbred unfit behaviours did not, but not because they did not want to, but because they couldn’t.
September 25, 2005 at 5:47 pm #29951
I totally agree with the fact that we are a coincidence, just like everything on earth. Don’t forget, life apperead as a coincidence.
Totally agreed with patrick in both points. The importance of love? Come on, let’s be serious. Do you think bacteria, or plants, or fungus exhibit love?
About the will to survive? Will is the most complex neurological action of a human. Do you think a plant wants to grow? It grows because that is what it’s DNA codes for: a lot of proteins that will make it grow.
September 25, 2005 at 6:47 pm #29958
I think this came from a movie,
“Love is nature’s trick to make us reproduce”
September 25, 2005 at 6:51 pm #29961
Really cool. And it is true, also.
September 25, 2005 at 7:00 pm #29965
On second thought, maybe it is not true entirely. Think about this: I am in love with my gf. If another woman comes and proposes me to..hmm.. mate with her, i will turn her down resulting in the fact that i will have less offspring that i would have had without the existance of love. On the other hand, i don’t know how many guys would do the same as me, so the human species is safe 😀
September 25, 2005 at 11:32 pm #29973
You’d dump her because if she’s pregnant already, she’ll be useless(reproductively speaking) for 9+ months.
September 26, 2005 at 1:33 pm #29987mattyogoParticipant
Maybe will is not the best word…. but still everything that is on earth (even bacteria) want to survive..
Now I think it is more philosophy to thing about what we mean by this “want” .. a bacteria survives.. It looks for food (chemicals that it can use to grow, to make energy, etc)… of course it does not think about it.. but in it’s genome it is coded, that it will move to places which have more energy aboundant compounds, if there are not enough it might form a spore and so on… basically all a bacteria does IS survive.. to me.. this is a sort of will.. of course it is not a feeling, it is not conscious in any way, but still anything that “wants” to live.. must have in it encoded somehow everything that will move it toward living… of course if it does not have this encoded it will die out…
September 26, 2005 at 6:36 pm #29992
You have to make a clear distnction between philosophy and science. Here is a better example: in the rotulian reflex, does your leg want to bounce(maybe not the best word)? No, it simply an unconditioned relfex that is triggered automatically. Same thing with bacteria…
October 12, 2005 at 12:20 pm #30820
Have you ever heard of the phrase: the primitive impulse to survive?
I have heard it being mentioned on the popular television series “The X-Files.” Initially I never knew what it meant. Then I saw a documentary on Discovery Channel – it was about some particular aspect of human evolution; because of it we humans remain to be the most dominant species. In other words the main theme was why humans became the dominant species. How was our evolution different from all other species?
After those two incidents, I began to wonder about fear. (However, fear was not the subject of that documentary). I asked myself, “What was the real purpose of fear?” It seemed to me that all of us need a certain kind of fear (basic fear) to escape what was a common phenomenon during the primitive days – predation. So fear is a kind of adaptation if you think this way. But when and how did fear evolve? I have no answers for that.
This fact is irrepressible – the idea of survival is evident. But then, if you wanted to know why, the answer is vague – survival is simply there because we have to survive.
Now when we come to the lower level of organisms like bacteria, fungi, etc the idea of survival does exist. Now you might think that I am really obsessed or crazy for that matter. But a bacteria searching for food does indicate it wants to live. But how do we relate to it? We don’t really know. We don’t know if the bacteria can really think like we do? I mean I am not sure. However, you must realise, intelligence, as such, is a construct of survival. It simply means that if not for survival, intelligence would have no qualified purpose…
Although, I realise it is strange to think of things this way, I only wish that we all understand certain aspects of our existence and the existence of other species. Saying this much, I really want to know: do you believe that it is good to go on thinking like this…?
October 12, 2005 at 6:06 pm #30845
You think more in terms of philosophy, not biology.
But i do agree with one thing: intelligence did evolve to help in survival. Whether or not you can state that a bacterium wants to live is really relative to how you define “want”. From a biological point of view it is incorect, but from a phlilosophical point of view it is absolutely valid.
October 27, 2005 at 12:38 pm #31628
I have this other curious question!!!
Why is reproduction ever important? I am tempted to think, again, supporting the view of survival that there is some link. But I can’t articulate it precisely…
Why is there this urge for a specie to mutiply and duplicate its genes? I had also thought of ideas related to food chain before. The food chain according to me, is a representation, of how animals interact in an ecosystem as far as consumption is concerned. An imbalance to this food chain, I assumed, was allowing one specie to reproduce freely. This slowly affects all the other species in the food chain; it can finally result in extinction/decrease in population of the other species to be general. This finally affects the specie under consideration. If you let this specie to reproduce freely, then definitely it is going to face extinction one day, right?
In this light how is reproduction ever important…?
October 27, 2005 at 5:28 pm #31649February BeetleParticipant
Not defiantly. I remember seeing something about wolves eating Elk and their young after being brought back into a certain area. The Elk population is going down very fast and the wolf population is rising and they are basically protected from almost anything… but when the Elk move because it is too dangerous or if they all die then the wolf population will become very small, which in turn give the Elk time to repopulate and with only a small number of wolves to hunt the elk, the elk population will get very large which will equal more food for wolves so the wolf population grows again. I see it as more of a cycle than it leads to extinction but I’m sure it has in other cases.
December 15, 2005 at 5:28 am #35014SpygirlParticipant
I think perhaps we are all looking at this wrong. Doesn’t this all seem really pointless why would animals reproduce and struggle to survive if all they would do is die?
Why would humans have such wonderful loving relationships if we were no better than the black widow who eats her husband?
I don’t know if you have ever taken a physics class but the 3rd law of physics is that everything increases in disorder. Since Biology and Physics work together it seems clear that life could not have truly been an accident. But then we come back to the age old question of what is the purpose of llife?
Have you ever truly been in love? You will know that it is not just a trick of your imagination. Have you ever protected your child from danger? You will know it was not an instinct. Explain that to me.
In my opinion there is a purpose to life, there is a reason we are all here, there is a reason that we love and have zest for life. I believe we are seperate from the animals, they are driven by mere instinct not by family ties or love, the male black widow mates and is eaten, if that happened in the human world that would be simply ridiculous (not to mention sick) The male elephant mates and then leaves with no regard for his child, in the human world that is the cause of much heartache and grief. Humans care about each other, we care about the world around us, we study it, we protect it we do more than any species on the planet. The gazelle does not care if there is not enough Ozone, the parakeet did not build rockets to the moon. The Amazon tree frog could care less about if other tree frogs are homeless. I think animals act on instinct, but humans are above that.
Animals are here to provide us with food in my opinion, if they did not reproduce they would not be here any more to give us food. If they could not adapt to their enviroment they would not be here to give us food. And if they did not have instinct they would not be here to provide us with food. Therefore things evolve, things change, but if they aren’t helping us out they are not doing their job.
December 15, 2005 at 1:21 pm #35032
Mother birds, bears, lions, some crocodiles protect their young from danger. Instincts. Plus I can find animal lovers and vegetarians who will disagree with your second point.
Even with all our squabbling, wars and pointless activities, our survival does contribute a(small) part to the overall benefit of humanity, and that makes living worthwhile.
December 15, 2005 at 4:14 pm #35045JumpshooterParticipant
All the philosophical and physiological reasoning that has been used to elucidate Evolution can be distilled to one simple fact: All living organsims exist to Reproduce themselves. Anything else is just for show. Self-reproduction IS Survival in the Biological World. Hence all the elaborate mechanisms of sexual reproduction that have evolved.
December 15, 2005 at 6:31 pm #35054
It’s weird when humans have sexual dysfunction.
March 12, 2006 at 3:12 pm #43085
Sorry, for the long period of absence. Frankly I never expected this place to be this animated ever since I forgot about it.
First, I side with MrMistry: I mean he has one point. I see things philosophically rather than scientifically. And it is only in philosophy that I believe that the idea of survival makes any sense.quote Spygirl:
Well, even I do believe that there is a purpose to life. And that was why I had thought about survival. And I don’t know why but I still believe that survival is the only reason we are alive today.
Well, it high time I tell you people about a blog I created. It is titled figuring out life. I post about my thoughts regarding this subject. I have been quite about this place for a long time. I would like people to visit that place. PLease give me your feedbacks too. Remember you can comment there if you like… ❗
One other thing I would want you to know is about the posts there: I may have posted more than one post in a single day. In that case, read the last post first and the first post last. Begin with the old posts.
March 12, 2006 at 3:18 pm #43086
Yes, i have been doing some research, and I think my line of thinking would be more associated with a branch of cognitive science called evolutionary psychology…
If you people have any views regarding this please feel free to express
March 13, 2006 at 9:56 am #43132quote :
The purpose of life is to survive.The better we adapt to the surrounding the better we survive.The truth,justice does not always survive.We evolve to survive.It is only the survival that we need.The so called Love is nothing but a factor for survival.There is always a love between the people of the same race for the survival of the specific race.The love between the mother and child is strong in humans and not so in lower animals.Love does have a lot of positive features and has no philosophy.Love is present for the mother to teach and to protect its offspring indirectly preparing the offspring to survive in the world of competetion.There nothing called as true love it is all inborn and they may be expressed in different frequencies.As far as my mind goes true love is a mere sacrifice.The reason why we have to survive is because we donot want our race to die off.The rason why animals cannot achieve great heights like humans can is because they did not evolve to have a larger brain.I accept that animals are food but not only for us but also the other species.The aim of a producer is to survive and escape from the primary consumers.The objective of herbivores is to eat the producers
and to escape from the carnivores and so on.The reason why humans evolved a masterous brain is not clear upto date but there is a vague guess that the reason was to adapt for a climatic change in the rift valley.
March 13, 2006 at 3:08 pm #43150quote David George:
I suggest you watch Discovery or NGC. One day I got this crazy account stating that the present world sprung up from meagre population of 200 people some million years ago.
It also gave us a clear picture of why we humans adapted rather successfully. Well, it has to do a lot with consuming protein diets. After human beings discovered fire, they had to take less time to chew food (which otherwise usually took like 4 to 5 hrs to masticate). The human brains grew more larger in size because of this. And from there the story of evolution takes on…It was a good documentary.
March 13, 2006 at 3:16 pm #43152
Would you people agree if I said love is a small part of a bigger process called feminism?
Try to think about it. Males were originally known to be polygamous. (No offence, but its true). But today, you see fathers are happy managing one wife and few children.
The most logical reason for this phenomenon was that males were somehow interested in fathering the offspring to maturity. In other words, it was for no other reason other than to take care of their young ones!
March 13, 2006 at 8:59 pm #43174
I think I vaguely see the connection to feminism, but you haven’t made it clear in your post.
In order to tie it to "feminism" per se, you would need to argue that females began to require more monogamous relationships before they would mate. This could very well be, as keeping the male around would greatly increase the fitness of the mother and child.
This is also a population-limiting behavior though. It calls for a sex-ratio of approximately 50:50, limiting the number of offspring that can be produced.
For example, in a 50:50 population of 1000 people, no more than 500 babies can be produced in a 10-18 month period of time (allowing time for gestation and nursing).
On the other hand, in a 75:25 male to female ratio population of 1000 people (a rough ratio resembling herom-istic animals) the number of offspring that can be produced increases accordingly.
The same can be said aboud a 99:1 ratio.
So the change must have taken place when Homo or earlier ancestors began to become highly social, and rely more on inclusive fitness than mass propagation.
March 13, 2006 at 9:29 pm #43176
Hello and nice to meet new forum members!
Dont be intimidated by
the evolutionists because
that theory is no more
scientific than creation.
And this discussion will just go
around and around like always 🙄
Evolution is like a religion of its own.
It just happens to be the popular one right now. 😉
I think scientists and biologists should keep looking for
answers either way and keep an open mind.
Then there is the middle ground about how
God used evolution. They will say there is proof
of evolution but I think if there is ever any real
proof with out any doubt at all (mit would be all over the news)
then evolution will
no longer be a theory and the debate will end.
Its funny though has any one ever given thought about
how the bible was scientific at a time thousands of years
a head of the times. Wouldnt the creator of all things
have known these things?
March 13, 2006 at 10:07 pm #43178
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:28 am Post subject:
So eloquently stated!
God has put eternity in to them (Humans) having been
made in his image they are a little above the animals.
Humans can choose between instinct and love.
March 14, 2006 at 1:16 am #43200quote :
You can’t apply the "3rd law of physics" (by which I think you mean 2nd law of thermodynamics) that way, it’s a misinterpretation of the law itself, which only deals specifically with energy moving from a more ordered source to a less ordered one. And as for survival, well the organisms that don’t try to reproduce just don’t, so of course we’d never see them.
With the science out of the way, I think that spygirl made a very interesting point about love. I (as a Catholic) feel that it’s our ability to build those loving relationships that make us something special as compared to the black widows. I can’t pretend that I come even close to understanding God’s designs for the universe even at the lowest level, but that’s what makes the most sense to me.
Hmm, I’m not quite sure why I threw my personal beleifs into the science message boards, but oh well here they are anyhow :p
March 14, 2006 at 1:37 am #43205
Linn I would congratulate you on killing another scientific discussion, but it really has been mostly metaphysical from the beginning.
For a biologist to state the "meaning of life" in any sense other than biological would require him or her to go outside their realm of expertise and into the realm of speculation.
Likewise, for a scientist to state that there isn’t a God or that the earth wasn’t created, is also pure speculation, as that cannot be addressed scientifically.
********you can go ahead and start ignoring what I’m saying right around here*******************
If, at some point in the future, every aspect of human capacity for emotion, spiritualism, etc, is isolated biologically and tied to various hormones and neurons, that will still not disprove the existence of spiritual meaning (kinda like the Matrix :D).
It could be that the meaning of life is to seek nirvana, or go be a missionary and eventually go to heaven. Science’s goal is not to prove or disprove that though, it is simply to explore scientific relationships.
There are patterns in nature that, when explored, can lead to answers, or at least more informed questions.
Start with Darwins finches. Ok, micro evolution. Now start looking at the fossil records and geologic timescale. Look at the patterns of magnetic inversions found in oceanic crust. Look at ancient fossils of the same species found on separate continents. Look at the relationships of populations to their environments and how that affects their behavior.
I really don’t see how you can fail to see the patterns in nature, very mathematical in structure (see Hamiltons Rule). All science is attempting to do is put together the pieces, solve the patterns.
Figuring out the "meaning of life" from a biological standpoint is something that can be attempted through this process of inquiry. To do so, one must look at the survival patterns of every form of life, and in fact question what exactly it is that we define as "life". Why does a bacterium live? Why does a cockroach live? Why does a chicken live? Why do the innumerable species still undocumented by science live? Ultimately a scientific answer will have nothing to do with a spirit or a god, as science cannot approach that subject and remain science. This does not deny the existence of those, but merely provides the best possible SCIENTIFIC answer.
It’s INCREDIBLY chauvenistic and anthropocentric of people to assume that the meaning of "life" only pertains to their life, and that they are the only beings worthy of a soul. You’re going to think I’m horrible for saying this but: What makes a child born as a non-functioning, braindead vegetable any more worthy of heaven or hell than the family dog?
At least science can persue a systematic process of inquiry and discovery, and freely admits when it’s wrong.
This is something that cannot be said for other "attempts to explain the world."
I think you’ll find an important distinction between science and religion right around the realm of… belief and faith in the metaphysical. Furthermore, faith in general. I consider it possible that abiogenesis may have occured in the way it is theorized to have, but I don’t blindly put faith in that hypothesis. The closest you’ll find scientists (ideally, i know some take science to the level of a religion and that’s unfortunate) coming to "faith" will be using assumptions to base their experiments on and make models.
*********And you can go ahead and start paying attention again right about here*******************
So I feel that you’re mocking evolution and thus science, which is ironic as you’re a senior member in a scientific forum. I couldn’t let it pass, though I know everything I’ve said here has been said before in other threads, and if you ignored them then, you’ll ignore them now.
Anyhow, i’ve said a lot and as you said "this discussion will just go
around and around like always".
March 14, 2006 at 2:48 am #43210quote :
If I consulted the same sources as Lynn, I’d be in trouble too. They sounds so persuasive and reasonable…except they are totally wrong and unscientific, but alas (I’m not trying to be pretentious here, it’s really true) only those who know and understand physics would be able to tell the difference.
Excepts posted below because I know there are people who are too lazy to click the link. I especially liked how the article was summarized.quote :quote :
March 14, 2006 at 3:59 am #43220
This looks like a fabulously interesting discussion . . . I promise to enter it as soon as I am sufficiently not-tired to read everything in detail so that my reply shall not make me seem like a total retard. 😛
March 14, 2006 at 4:17 am #43223
Mithril with another talkorigins quote. I will have to sit down some day and read more of that site. The information seem to be very good. Also, I like your <philosophy mode> haha 🙂
On side note, Spygirl, is not necessary to equate believing in evolution to not believing in god. I think I read someone say (I can’t remember who sorry) Science tells us the How, and faith tells us the Why. So you can be both spiritual and not have to go against science too!!
March 14, 2006 at 5:51 am #43227quote :
You lucky keralites I am in Chennai and all the Pay channels have been taken off! 😡 😡 😡 😥 😥 😥 .The guess I wrote was taken from the nat geo website.
March 14, 2006 at 6:19 am #43229quote :
Well I think that fathers are happy to manage one wife because of the culture and the amount of money they earn.In arab countries rich people marry many wives.I donot think your reasons are right.Looking.scientifically
I think that males are polygamous because they prefer to mate.If they do so with different females they might increase the variation and the number of offsprings.Hence the human race can thrive well.Although many males donot realize the reasons mentioned above.quote :
Thats funny the science I know is learned because humans are curious to know the reason for everything and religion is only an assumption made by humans to give satisfactory reasons for what he did not know.Although many are not satisfactory for science.I say that religion is a science followed rigidly and not changed with discoveries.But true science always changes.You adapt to the changes you survive thats life.Although there is a limit to adapt.I donot find any science when the Red sea splits up when moses ordered it to nor do I find any science when the first born son was slaughtered in egypt.All faiths tell us about love as a charecter to be possed to reach heaven or some great place.Love is only a character evolved it might be expressed or not that does not mean the person is bad.The Ten commandments says that having an eye on the neighbours donkey or anything is a sin. 😆 😆 If the lion does not steal food from the cheetah is somebody go and feed the lion?The bible does not say the heart as an organ that pumps your blood to represent kindness and so on.the heart has nothing to do with kindness it is the brain that controls our intellectual functions.Don’t tell me Jesus or Messiah or The Holy Spirit did not realize this.
March 14, 2006 at 9:40 am #43234
David you’re expressing an important point, but I think your choice of wording (such as "only") is a bit too inflamatory.
Religion isn’t "only" one thing. Do not try to defend oversimplified views of science by pidgeon-holing religion. That just makes things worse.
Having said that: I agree that the fables/myths/allegories/metaphors/etc of religions originally stemmed from scientific inquiry, but were then bogged down in dogmatic doctrine. BUT do not take this as discrediting the stories provided by religions. I believe those stories have HUGE impacts on the cultures of civilizations, and their ideologies. Literalist interpretations should be avoided, but nevertheless, there is a lesson to be learned from each and every story.
I don’t doubt that a Christian Creationist would deny that it is even remotely possible that all life crawled out of a hollow log or hole in the ground, starting with coyote (native american myth), or that we all live on the back of a giant turtle or elephant (Indian(Eastern)…?). Yet they cling to literalist interpretations of their own canon, as the "word of god".
People need to step back and take a fresh look at these issues, and realize What Matters Most (WMM).
Is it your relationship with God? Or is it nitpicking and arguing over minor details, even though the message will remain the same.
Creationists need to stop feeling threatened by Evolution, and start explaining to their children how the two can exist parallel to eachother, and the importance of living according to WMM.
This perpetual argument merely causes a false dichotomy, in which people are forced into camps.
Anyway, I’ve regressed. The point: at any point, scientific inquiry can become religion, as faith and dogma come into play.
March 14, 2006 at 11:29 am #43249
David, I think you’re trying to take the Bible for something that it’s not. It is by no means a science textbook, although it does have some value as a historical book. However, the Bible’s main purpose is to make a spiritual rather than scientific or historical point. This is why there is so much in it that seems to contradict science (such as the creation story or the great flood) and even books that are completely fictitious (such as Job, Tobit, Judith, Jonah, and a few others). Religion is not meant to be a substitute for science; I know some try to use that way but that’s another issue entirely. Religion is about a relationship with God; nothing more, nothing less.
March 14, 2006 at 12:16 pm #43258
Let us take religion from the point it started.The early man had a lot of curisity and could not come to conclusions why some things happened.Ex he could not reason why the rain occurs or the rainbow come or fire burns things.So he gave his own reasons or made them into God.Agni is one such God in the hindu religion.And the reason give in the bible for the rainbow formation is an indication that God will not destroy earth one more time with water.These facts can be dissaproved by science.Looks like the blood pressure of Alex and Astus shooted up when they read the last line of my last post.No religion really preaches about the TRUE GOD.For the true God all animals including humans are the same and he does not have love or kindness nor is he a tyrant.He is God not Jesus not Bramha Not Buddha nor anything that humans preach.We need not praise him and waste our time he has given our job as to survive.Miracles of curing are not true if you say that God cured it even the true God I am speaking about.Disease are there to kill us it has its job to do that does not mean we can just let it grow we have a immune system to defend us.The world is a War Field all organisms are given specific weapons to fight there weapons get updated by Evolution and The True God does not support any organism.
March 14, 2006 at 4:03 pm #43270
Why is it that no one can just throw "I believe" in before they make a sweeping statement about religion? Nobody really knows exactly who or what God is, nor can they pretend to understand God’s motives (if any, as David posited above). It’s so arrogant to say that you understand the true God and no one else can be right, particularly since that’s not really something that you can provide any evidence for.
March 14, 2006 at 5:11 pm #43272quote Linn:
I get your point Linn; in fact I was moved by this article on the national geographic website: I suggest you too take a look at it: try browsing to this link
March 14, 2006 at 5:37 pm #43279quote AstusAleator:
Try my blog for a change. I have attempted to explain it however I am not sure about it. After all its just a thought! 😐
March 14, 2006 at 6:04 pm #43280
[quote :quote :
Do I sense some extreme hostility directed at me?
first of all, you need to go back and read all the posts
as to who said what, and secondly just because you do
not agree with me doesnt make creation less scientific than
I think these people have the right to say what they think
just like you do, dont you think?
you are the one killing this conversation of which
I was only commenting on what was already said.
GoSH!!! 🙄quote :
Because they are reasonable
just as your sources semm to be. 🙄
Dont forget you do not have a theory if there is no opposition.
You taught me that from a link you previously provided.
I have not said anything that is not scientific either, except when some of you get off subject and start attacking the person instead of the argument. KWIM? Then every one gets sidetracked.
So then, where were we?
March 14, 2006 at 6:51 pm #43284quote :
Thank you I love National Geographic!
My point is that when they hear the word
creation or God they have predetermined
in their head that it is not scientific at all.
When we are still in the unknowns stage.
True science is objective is it not?
The question should always be what is the probability
And the probability that life suddenly self generated is
no more probable than design.
back to my point about the bible,
which was scientific way before its time.
How did those humble writers know to say the "circle"
of the earth
and that God hung the earth upon nothing, this at a time
when people (the scientists of their day) said the earth
was being carried by a giant turtle, and two elephants.
Even during Columbus day the popular view was that the
earth was flat.
Because they obviously did not read the bible.
it told of the cycle of evaporation, this cycle was unknown
in ancient times, yet it is clearly explained in the bible.
Then of course it is said that "in the begining God created
the heavens and the earth, Robert Jastrow explained this
when he said;"The essence of the strange developements
is that the universe had, in some sense, a beginning -that
it began at a certain moment in time."
This is the now commenly acepted big bang theory,
because there is observable data to support it.
Its not about religion, most are man made, interpretations,
its about the Creator, the inntelligence behind the design.
I believe someone quoted previously from the Koran too.
How did these writers know these things???? ❓ 💡 💡
If we had been started or colonized here by a more advanced
civilazation isnt it logical that those early peoples would most
likely have been in touch with them?
And as time went on naturally we lost that contact and now
all we have left is these writings.
March 14, 2006 at 6:52 pm #43285
You’re trying to compare creationism sources and scientific sources and saying they hold equal weight because simply they are equally reasonable. Hopefully you’ll realize that they aren’t.
Being reasonable and logical is a step to getting to scientific truth but sites such as evolutiondeceit don’t try to be scientific at all. As the talkorigins article stated, having metaphors helps to illustrate the fact but if the metaphors are inaccurate they’re useless and harmful as a source of information which most of the creationist arguments are.
I don’t remember saying that a theory isn’t a theory if there isn’t opposition but I do remember saying that a scientific theory has to be falsifiable, or a chance of being wrong(otherwise it is dogma). And there are stipulations and conditions which would put serious doubt on evolution if they existed, but the creationists haven’t found any of those. Instead they invent reasonable "facts" to cast doubt such as with the laws of thermodynamics or claiming that the there are no transitional fossils.
March 14, 2006 at 6:56 pm #43286
Please what have I said that is
not scientific or not debatable?
March 14, 2006 at 7:00 pm #43288
You can debate it but as the talkorigins site stated, applying the laws of thermodynamics is unscientific, inaccurate and wrong.
March 14, 2006 at 7:01 pm #43289quote :
I printed out information from a link from
I do read what you post and the links you
I even print them out. That was from a disscussion two
mo ago, U know with Springer? 🙂
March 14, 2006 at 7:04 pm #43291
March 14, 2006 at 8:05 pm #43304quote Linn:quote Linn:
These seem to be a bit contradictory…
Here’s the big reason that evolution is still a theory (and always will be). Way back in time, great thinkers coined laws. Think of Newton’s three laws of motion, for example. But much later on, Einstein showed up and mathematically showed that Newton’s equations only described a portion of the universe. They weren’t wrong, but they weren’t the whole picture either. At that point scientific progress took on more of an "It seems to describe everything we see right now" attitude, because there is always the chance that we will learn more that will subsume whatever we think of now. The evolutionary model works well, but it may not be the whole picture and that is why we leave the word theory attached. In that same vein, plenty of scientists keep their minds open, and don’t let the fact that some people may be die hard about it lead you to stereotyping others. After all, there have been radicals in favor of creationist theories, but you wouldn’t want me to discard the very idea of creationism just because of them, would you? And even if (IF) something is determined to be an absolute fact, there will always be dissenters. Google the Flat Earth Society if you need evidence of that.
And as for your link… zuh? Physics is hard, I think I’ll stick to biology 😉
March 14, 2006 at 8:24 pm #43310
Because they are both theories.
😉 (evolution vs creation) not contradictory.
is because of the repeated statements by some that
creationist are not scientific.
Energy is needed for biological processes.
the point was one among others I made
about the bible being scientific
at an unscientific time. Giving authority as
a credable source.
http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?inv … nd+biology
March 14, 2006 at 8:40 pm #43312
That’s fine logically (about the bible being scientific when it was). But just because one thing may be correct (the bible describing the water cycle) doesn’t necessarily mean that every single word of it would literally be true, and it’s that inference that stops it from being conclusive proof.
I’m sorry, I have some trouble following message board discussions sometimes, when you say that energy is needed for biological processes, why are you bringing that up? Is it in relation to the link you gave in your last post? Because the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t really affect that either way (or is there another physics concept being discussed that I missed?)
March 14, 2006 at 9:57 pm #43320
I’ve never denied the possibility of creation. The question is, is it testable and/or is there observable proof?
canonical religious texts contain much science and pseudoscience. Linn you mention parts of the bible where sound scientific principles are mentioned. Other parts of the bible can be found that do not make any scientific sense. Every species of microorganism, insect, animal, reptile, and bird was put on Noah’s ark in pairs or greater, when the ark wasn’t even as big as some modern-day tankers. God made the SUN stand still. There are contradicting creation stories (yes there are two).
The point of all of these scientific and pseudoscientific allegories was not science though, but the moral story or philosophy to be learned therein.
I would suggest taking a new look at what may have in the past been literalist interpretations, held by faith, and exploring what the Bible ACTUALLY has to say. I’m not, by any means, saying it’s wrong, or it’s lying. I’m just saying that, perhaps by taking literal meanings, one can lose sight of the message.
Anyhow, I feel I’ve said what I need to say on this subject.
March 14, 2006 at 9:59 pm #43321
I dont know things get brought up some how 😕 .
I think because I mentioned the big bang theory. 🙂
I get confused (I am not a biologist)
But I remember one of the first lecture of biology
& botany class started a lecture on energy and
"energy is the ability to do work. "etc..
then you know you start taling about cells and stuff 😆
I agree that many religious people act like fanatics
and thus the views about the bible . And some things I
n the bible are literal and other things were not meant for
the people of those times but for today.
When you read "dwelling above the circle of the earth"
what else could that mean, that is obviously literal.
Some even speculate it is writen in code.
But why was the bible right on the mark about some of the things I mentioned? How did they know those things? before telescopes, microscopes etc.. How did they know?
Just wondering where that info came from. It was even before
Pythagorus of ancient greece and others who could tell it was round because of shadows.
That is why I say to keep an open mind
Was life created or did it create itself?
I like this quote from a biologist. its old but I think still holds true:
"Many scientists succumb to be dogmatic,…over
and over again the question o the origen of the
species has been presented as if it were finally settled.
Nothing could be further from the truth….But the tendency
to be dogmatic persists and it does no service to the
cause of science". From [b]the Gaurdian[/b]
John R. Durant, London
March 14, 2006 at 10:15 pm #43323quote Khaiy:
Exactly, Newton’s was a special case of General Relativity. Just because we think the earth is round doesn’t mean, it’s only a theory and one day we’ll go back to thinking it’s flat. We might just get more specific and say it’s an oblique sphere that bulges out more at the equator.
No idea what your energy link was about. And I already agreed that scientific theories shouldn’t be dogmatic…evolution isn’t. What does have to be dogmatic though is the basic principles/guidelines of science i.e. what makes stuff scientific. If it doesn’t play by the rules it’s not scientific and creationists should stop trying to pretend it is. Let religion do what it does best and let science be science.
March 14, 2006 at 10:31 pm #43326
I have said basicaly the same things a few time
and could not agree with you more.
I wish people would read everything I say
you would see how many things I do agree with. 🙂
Of course all the life forms were not put on the ark.
Only "kinds" from that area inhabited.
This was early in history of mankind
not a heck of alot of people. one point here is the
bible says there was a flood and we have actual
evidence of it. (provided upon request) 😆
Also to the people who saw it it appeared
as though the sun had stood still.
Whatever phenomenon went on something
ie: reflected light
There is more science in the bible….
Have you ever read and studied the entire bible?
I see you do have some knowledge and that is good.
I want to learn all about evolution, and who knows I can
still take more bio classes and then come back here
and say the same things 😆
Got to excercise the brain
My problem is I hate bending over a scope for hours. 🙁
March 14, 2006 at 10:39 pm #43327quote :
I have no Idea why you brought up thermodynamics 😕
Can you be more specific
March 15, 2006 at 12:32 am #43343
David wrote:quote :
Agreed . . . with one amendment. Either man just made up the idea of God to explain nature or God revealed Himself to man once man had evolved enough intelligence to understand Him, just like He did to Abraham.quote :
I always get irritable when someone insults my faith. I try to be as scientific, objective, and non-religious as possible on this forum but sometimes the Catholic in me comes out to play; please forgive me while I try to make him come home for dinner, haha.quote :
It’s statements like these that cause me to take offense and, no offense intended, I honestly wonder if you know what you’re talking about. The true God, for those of us who have experienced Him first hand (come on, my fellow religous people, back me up here!) is all about love. As a Catholic, I have experienced many things that cannot be explained scientifically and I know from first-hand experience that God exists and is all about love. How can you be so judgmental?quote :
Absolute bull. I have seen for myself and faith healing is a very real phenomenon. I have seen the crippled walk, the blind given sight, and people cured from near-death, and none of these can be explained by medicine or science. Doctors have tried and have concluded that there really is something we don’t understand going on here. For those of us who read the Bible, we’ve understood it all along.
David, I sense you have a hostility towards any religious belief, but I also sense that you either don’t know much about it or have never personally experienced it. Countless studies have shown that there’s more to religion, much more, than mere superstition. For those of us who have experienced it first hand, God is as real as the ground under my feet or the air I breathe. Why do you hate religion so much?
I’m sorry if I’m getting too religious for this forum but I do have a right to defend myself, and I get very defensive when my faith is so blatantly insulted.
March 15, 2006 at 2:56 am #43354
Can’t… stop… posting…
Alex, i think if there was to be a thread for waxing religious, this would be it.
Linn: I think part of our problem here is that we both say so much, and our discussions cover so many variations on topic that we can’t keep track of everything the other has said :).
Now, I want to clarify something. When we’re talking about Noah’s flood, are you defending it as a literal truth, or as a general truth? If it is literal, then we can look at the data provided in the book and run logistics. If it is general… it might get a little harder.
Regarding "types" *sigh* the flood couldn’t have been more than 6-10 thousand years ago if it happened, meaning that evidence of it should be globally evident in all geologic strata of that age, yet that is not so.
Name a "type" that could have evolved all of the evident diversity of it’s class within the last 10,000 years. I’m sorry but you don’t get the myriad forms of the perciform "type" fish in that amount of time. Nor do you get the amazing variety of chondrichthyes (sharks), all variations on a "type".
As far as dogma is concerned, I couldn’t agree more with that quote you posted. I don’t understand how you can agree with it, though, and still assert that religion is science, or that evolution is pure dogma.
I’m getting back to your statement that evolution is "as religious as creation" here.
When I entered college, I still believed in a literal translation of the creation story in the Bible (i was raised very religious and yes I have studied a lot of the bible). Studying biology and evolution has not "replaced one religion with another" but given me a better understanding of the physical world and the method of science. I still believe that there is a God, and that that God had a hand in making the world what it is. That’s my belief though. It doesn’t conflict with my knowledge of science and evolution.
Has what I’ve learned had an impact on how I percieve God? Yes. Is that bad? No! Why shouldn’t I want to learn more about the laws and processes of the physical world, if this will better help me understand my relationship to it and to God.
PS: The sun always looks like it’s standing still to me…
March 15, 2006 at 3:46 am #43359
Astus wrote:quote :
I meant general. As I said before, I believe there may have been a flood in the Black Sea and this may account for the story recorded in Genesis. It would’ve been local, but for the people that lived there it would’ve destroyed everything they ever knew. Thus it would’ve been reported as catastrophic, and exagerated over time, and finally written down as global. As for everything else you say about the flood, I agree.quote :
YES!!! I couldn’t agree more!!! This is exactly what both sides of the argument need to realize. Any claims about evolution being pseudo-science or, even worse, religion are complete baloney; similarly, any claims the religious belief is somehow outdated or obsolete are complete and total bull****. Sorry for the asterisks but that’s pretty much how I feel.
Science helped me out considerably in my spiritual journey; in fact, at one point a book by the biologist Dr. Kenneth Miller literally saved my faith. Science, to me, is endless fascination and that’s why I want to make it a career. But it shall always take a back seat to what I believe is my true purpose in life, which can only be found through religious faith.
March 15, 2006 at 4:18 am #43364
Please allow me to set the record straight as to the Genesis creation story. I’ve read it several times in the past few days and I’ve noticed a number of interesting facts that are probably missed by most people. Those facts can be broadly categorized as two points. First, Genesis agrees with science if it’s interpreted correctly; secondly, a literal interpretation contradicts itself and therefore cannot be trusted.
Starting from the beginning, Gen 1 describes both evolution and the big bang. With regards to the big bang, God says "Let there by light: (Gen 1:3), and *bang* there’s light, just as if you were observing the big bang. There’s other parallels in subsequent verses but for the sake of space I won’t go into it here. As for evolution, God creates life first in the ocean (Gen 1:20), just like evolution, and then life on land (Gen 1: 24), and man comes last (Gen 1:26-27).
Here’s the first contradiction. Gen 1:27 describes man and woman being created simultaneously, not seperately as is so often believed. That brings us to chapter 2. This is the second creation story, and it differs in two important details from the first. In the first chapter, God creates animals first, then man; in the second chapter, man comes first, then animals (Gen 2:18-19). Secondly, this is where man and woman are described as being created seperately (Eve from Adam’s rib, Gen 2:21-23), and this contradicts the account from the first chapter.
It gets worse. Cain, Adam’s eldest son, is described as the ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe (Gen 4:21). This is obviously not true because David played the lyre and was descended from Adam’s third son Seth, not from Cain; also, Cain’s lineage supposedly died out in the flood, so how can it still be around to play the lyre?
Genesis 5 described some preposterously long lifespans that completely contradict Gen 6:3, where God states that man’s maximum lifespan is 120.
Numerous errors are obvious in the flood story, not the least of which is how did all those animals and plants fit in that small a boat? How did they all get on the ark in just one day? How did only eight people care for all those lifeforms for a whole year? Why did Noah release a dove and it came back with an olive branch? Shouldn’t the tree have died in the flood?
I could go on, but it’d take days for me to say everything I have to say about this. The point of the first chapters of Genesis is not to read like a science textbook. The stories contradict themselves and thus obviously aren’t meant to be taken literally. Any claim that these accounts are scientific completely ignores the nature of the book itself, to be a spiritual guide rather than a scientific one.
The real message in these first chapters of the Bible is rather clear to those who read it. First, the message of the creation story is that God created a world that was good and intended it to stay that way, but mankind has a habit of destroying himself and his environment. So God casts judgment on those who disobey Him but shows infinite mercy and support to those who follow His Word. This is the message of Noah, that God will rescue the faithful from anything. This is what the book is meant to say, and this meaning is very true.
Any attempts to say that creationism is science cannot be substantiated by either science or religion. Genesis could easily rank as the most misinterpreted book of the Old Testament, and for Bible loves like me it’s very irksome that God’s Word is so distorted and mistreated.
If anyone is interested, I’ve written a few essays about this topic. Anyone who wishes to read what I have written may contact me via e-mail; I will be happy to oblige any such requests.
March 15, 2006 at 11:51 am #43377
I am sorry but I am quite tired after my Exams may be I will reply tommorow.
March 15, 2006 at 7:16 pm #43399MikesenoParticipant
I feel like i’m cutting into this debate/discussion when it is about to end, but i’ve just registered and so wanted to post something and get involved.
I am a firm believer in evolution and do not have a high regard for creationism. However, I think it is important that the two are not looked at as entirely separate. The reason I say this is because although evolution is scientifically proven to be true, we still do not know for sure how life began and about how the universe came about. It is here that I feel the presence of a ‘higher’ being currently plays a role. For example, if you believe in the big bang, did someone initiate it? Although life evolved from very simple organisms, did somebody create the first living creature?
In answer to the first question, of course nobody really knows. Therefore any answer given is largely a matter of personal opinion. I believe that there must have been some "creator" that initiated the big bang or started the universe as we know it. I say this as a non-physicist!
I do not believe that the first living creature was created. I believe that as we currently know of only one planet (earth!…correct me if i’m wrong) with biotic life that the conditions that allow life to develop must be sufficiently complex to have evolved by chance. I hope I am making sense. Essentially what I am trying to say is why are there not more planets with biotic life (despite all of our searching, we have yet to find any "life" outside of our planet).
It is here that i believe the role of a "god" is important, not in the evolution of life. Life as we know it appears as it is because of evolution, not because "god" made us. As I already mentioned this is scientifically proven (by fossils for example that show common ancestors, etc) and so I believe the real argument lies elsewhere!
I hope this is understandable and that this is relevant to the discussion.
March 15, 2006 at 9:34 pm #43412
This point, like most of the others in this thread, has been made before, probably multiple times.
What you’re not considering is that this is simply your personal belief or philosophy on the origin of the universe. I think that it is contingent on the belief that you can get something from nothing, which so far in science has not been proven to be possible.
Science does not make any statements regarding a "creation" that would require metaphysical force. It uses what it understands to theorize about what it doesn’t.
The "big bang" was not a "creation" it was simply a new beginning according to the theory. I think it’s easy for people to make assumptions, and add "creation" or "god" into evident gaps in scientific knowledge, and then somehow think that all scientists do the same.
The difference is that non-scientists are content to fill those gaps with metaphysical philosophy or reason and leave it at that. True scientists are trying to find physical cause and effect.
I agree with your statement that religion and science should not be mutually exclusive, but I don’t agree with your reason. I don’t think that religion and science should be seen as conflicting. Nor do I think that one should ever seek religious answers to scientific questions, or vice versa.
PS: your language indicates to me that you put a deal of faith into what you classify as scientific knowledge. "I am a firm believer in evolution," "evolution is scientifically proven to be true," "if you believe in the big bang," etc.
evolution and the big bang are not "beliefs" nor are they proven to be true. Few to no scientific disciplines have provided scientific truths, as the very nature of science is to continually question the status quo as well as the unknown. The big bang is a theory, involving intricate observable mathematical relationships between celestial bodies. One must not "believe" or disbelieve in a scientific theory, but instead attempt to refute it.
March 15, 2006 at 11:14 pm #43423
you should read up on the theory of science although it’s more philosophy than "science"
March 16, 2006 at 1:48 am #43432quote :
if I understand corectly what you mean
I say Yes me too, I said I am just going to
read no posting, but here i am opening my
yes I have thought that also.
My pronlem is my eyes bug out reading on-line.
I like to print things out and sit and read them with
a nice cup of tea, this way I can really "listen" to the
others point and think clearly what i want to say,
or even agree upon. I love science and any thing
to do with it since I was a little kid. It was always my
favorite subject. You keep talking about religion
and not about creation. the one thing that religion has
in common: a creator/s
Even the native american peoples believed
in the one great spirit. and a flood story!!
about the flood:
In the day of Noah the flood came upon
the inhabited earth (inhabited by people)
at that time only a small portion of the earth
was inhabited by people
and thus is in concert with scientific evidence
that a huge
flood did happen. Also sea shells are found on the top
of the highest mountains.
Fish and whales of course were not brought on the ark.
I will get back to you later for info on how many
"kinds" would only have been needed to be brought
aboard to produce the diversity now seen.
I am on my daughters
computer and left my glasses and books at home.
She has my kwyboard because she spilled soda on hers,
and when I get it back I will print this whole thread and
take the time to read everything.
In a nut shell: What exactly does everyone believe?
Some believe evolution differently than others.
just for fun:
He ping,vrede, salan,shanti,paix,etc….
March 16, 2006 at 1:58 am #43436
just want to add one point.
Do you agree as you all must have read,
that theories start based on assumptions
and observations by thinking people
(the odd balls like us that debate and think
about these things)
then comes hypothesis and then theory
and then we try to find proof.
I say this because I keep seeing the word assumption. and sometimes assumptions
All the great scientists started with assumptions
they observed something, thought about it and based on that made an assumption…
March 16, 2006 at 2:29 am #43444
Linn wrote:quote :
Linn, I’m sorry, but Genesis tells us that the flood was global, not local. Here’s a few verses:
Gen 6:7 – So the Lord said, "I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created – people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."
Gen 6:17 – For My part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under Heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.
Gen 7:19-24 – The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole Heaven were covered; the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh dies that mvoed on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings; everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on teh face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.
It is clear that this story describes a global flood, not local or regional. In Gen 6:7, we are told that God intends to destroy all life, not just humanity, and that means the whole earth. Gen 6:17 says this even more clearly: ". . . to destroy from under Heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die." The passage from Gen 7 describes the waters covering even the highest mountains under all of Heaven, not just one region. This last passage also repeats that all life, not just humanity, dies in the flood.
Linn, I admire your faith and I admire your attempts to defend the Bible, but I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. As I stated before, a literal interpretation of the creation and flood stories is self-contradictory and shouldn’t be trusted. A more metaphorical interpretation is in great harmony with both science and theology and thus, I believe, a much better choice entirely.
My apologies if this is too religious, but after recent discussion in this thread I don’t think it’s too far out of line.
March 16, 2006 at 2:43 am #43449
I will catch ya tomorow or some
other time about that
March 16, 2006 at 3:02 am #43453
I know many regard sacred texts as a source of scientific data and you can argue that it’s infallible or whatever, but often the point isn’t that the book/text is wrong but that the interpretation is wrong.
Nowadays we can look back at the Rennaisance and say "oh man, weren’t those church leaders dumb for thinking the earth was the center of the universe." They argue and cited the Bible to support their claims…and they were wrong. But don’t we face the same problem today?
Who is to say that our interpretation of the text is correct, which part is supposed to be literal and which is supposed to be metaphorical? Unfortunately God doesn’t come down and say "this is what this passage means" or "this text is the authoritative version of my word." One only needs to look at the various sects and divisions within religions to realize that it can be interpreted many different ways.
You could say that the creation of the earth is pretty cut and dry, but no doubt there are others with equally valid claims to say that it isn’t.
March 16, 2006 at 11:21 am #43472
mithril wrote:quote :
I couldn’t agree more.quote :
Again, highly agreed.quote :
This is where I have to disagree with you. I used to believe that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, but after reading as much of it as I have I have come to believe the opposite. The Bible is very clear as to what it wants to say. Take Jesus for example. When He was being metaphorical, He told us so; when He was being literal, He told us so. So we don’t have to argue over how to interpret His words; He told us Himself exactly how He wants to be interpreted. With regards to the creation story, the numerous errors and inconsistencies are God’s way of telling us that He’s being metaphorical; also, as I said, the creation story can be interpreted to agree remarkable well with modern science. So yes, God does tell us what the Bible means; all we have to do is read it.quote :
Despite how much this topic is argued, I think it is very cut and dry. Just look at the scientific evidence which obviously leans towards evolution, then read the book which is obviously metaphorical and agrees with evolution, and it’s pretty obvious. At least it seems that way to me.
March 16, 2006 at 11:26 am #43473quote :
Well yesterday I did read the bible[Genesis] and found few things that were wrong [To me].It is said that they were two expances[water] one above the other below.The sky appears blue that doesnot mean it is water.The people who wrote the genesis didnot realize this and only obsereved that the sky and sea are blue and thought both were water.I think that this is what i_r_e_d’s girlfriend was talking about in the topic ‘Have you guy heard of the Bio Sphere?’.It is said that the stars were formed in the fourth day I think it is in Gen 1:7.It is also said that first vegetation was formed on land.It says that the water creatures and birds were formed first later the wild and domestic animals.This goes against evolution.My exams will be over tommorow so that I can write a larger message 😈 😈 .Beware . 😈 😈
March 16, 2006 at 11:32 am #43475
We have to keep in mind that the Hebrews originated in Mesopatamia. Abraham lived in Ur before God brought him to Canaan. It’s no surprise that the Genesis creation story is exactly the same as that foundin Mesopatamian theology; the flood story also has a large number of parallels. The Hebrews just wrote what they had always believed for generations.
And David, have you read the second chapter of Genesis? That’s where the second creation story is, and it disagrees with the first. This is my main point, that the story has to be metaphorical because it doesn’t even agree with itself. This is a crucial fact overlooked by most creationists; a coworker even tried to tell me last week that there’s only one creation story in Genesis, not two different ones. After reading the Bible, he had no choice but to agree with my point. I only wonder why he never read it before.
March 16, 2006 at 12:04 pm #43479quote alextemplet:
Like I said before, you only need to look at the number of different sects(and young earth proponents) to see how varied interpretations are. And I don’t feel there’s anyway of proving that you’re more "right" than the other person. You might feel it’s incredibly clear as day what is meant while your opposite could feel the same. Both of you might feel the other is insane, irrational or the demonic reincarnation. but is there anyway to break the deadlock?
But you say,"isn’t science the same way? You look at data and you interpret it." No, with science, you have criterias of adequacy which I don’t think religion has. Such things as scope, fruitfullness, testability, simplicity are relatively easy to test in science and it usually becomes obvious which theory is wrong(science=self-correcting).
But for example how would you test a religious interpretation fruitfulness? You could watch two people with different interpretations die and see one going to heaven and one to hell and conclude which is right or wrong. You could look at the lives of two people with different beliefs and see who gets smoten in life more by the hand of god. But even evil people lead happy lives. Short of judgement day, I don’t see anyway for you to verify which is the "right" interpretation.
Bottom line, science has consequences which can more or less be objectively tested, but religion…not really.
March 16, 2006 at 5:01 pm #43485MikesenoParticipant
I understand that the big bang and evolution are just theories. However, given the number of arguably faesible alternatives to and the minimal evidence for the big bang surely a lot of faith is needed in order to accept it. There is always going to be some area of any scientific theory that may be subject to debate and thus faith in a theory is always required.
Afraid haven’t really the time to reply fully now, but i will try to add to this later.
March 16, 2006 at 10:01 pm #43500
Mithril, I agree with you up to a point. As far as comparing large-scale religions to each other, such as Christianity to Buddhism, there really is no objective way to decide which is right or wrong. However, when comparing religions that have a common sacred book that both believe is infallible, then it’s as simple as deciding which is more consistent with the teachings of that book. That’s a lot easier than you make it seem. As I said the Bible is very clear as to what it means. As an example let me tell you about a discussion I had at work last week. A coworker who happens to be Christian tried to tell me that the Bible doesn’t say that Christians need to be baptized. He was of course completely wrong, and just off the top of my head I quoted two or three verses that say exactly that. He responded by changing the subject so he didn’t have to admit to being wrong. Now, I ask you, was his "interpretation" (if you could call it that) as good as mine? No! The very book that he and I both believe to be infallible tells us that Christians must be baptized, so to say otherwise is nowhere close to a valid interpretation; it’s outright wrong. So sometimes it is possible to decide which interpretations are right or wrong, just look at the holy books and see what they say. Most of the time they’re pretty straight-forward as to what they mean.
March 17, 2006 at 3:42 am #43511
I am just adressing the flood issue
my eyes are burnng so I am printing
out anything after that to read tomorrow.
I concede to you.
that yes this was not a mere little local
flood or anything it definetly had global impliations.
As is stated it rained 40 days non stop torrential rain.
compare that with what happens just a few weeks of
monsoon season does
to parts of India to get the picture of the devastation
that occured from 40 days and nights–catastrophic!!
First of all,
Let me say this:
In the bible the word earth or worlds is often
used interchangably just as it is in our day.
For example we might say why is the earth
becoming so bad. Of course we dont mean the literal earth.
With that thoght in mind,
I was answering a question about all the animals on earth
could not have fit in the ark given the size of it.
In that context, I pointed out how it was the I
nhabited earth that the deluge would be primarily
The purpose of the flood was to wash the whole world
of that time out of existence. In 6:11 it says that the earth
was being ruined by humans. and in verse 13 it says the earth
would be destoyed because of the violence.. Here it can’t be literal because the earth is
still here. 🙂 So can we concliude that the focus of the flood was
the violent, destructive, humans alive at the time and
unfortunatlythe animals would also parish along with them.
What was brought in to the ark was animals from this area,
as its not logical to assume that Noah went all over the entire
literal earth to gather up all the animals. God the creator
knowing all the genetic codes of all his creatures instructed
Noah as to just what "kinds" to bring upon the ark: "according
to their kinds… in which the force of life was active"
The ark was 1,400,000 cu ft. I have heard that only 43 kinds
of mammels 74 birds and 10 reptile species could produce the
diversity (you others can call evolution) I would like to know if any
one has an other estimate more or less conservative than this.
(Source unknown at this time I am searching though)
so the ark had ample room to accomadate these animals.
And what ever insects that hitched a ride.
Besides the actual water damage there would be other dire
affects to the earth. of course. to the crust, to the weather
patterns, quik freezes etc…even the earths tilt. so yes you
are right it was global my apologies.
but the deluge was because of, and directed at, people of one area.
the only "inhabited earth".
As Peter later said that God brought a deluge upon an ancient world.
2 peter 2:5
I have more to say but enough for one page I dont want your
eyes to glaze over like mine sometimes get. 😆
March 17, 2006 at 4:29 am #43516
Linn, to make your argument about "kinds," you have to accept that evolution is possible. What you’re saying is that life evolved after it left the ark. To make this argument you have to admit that evolution is possible.
The more important thing is where did you get your numbers? Sure, all mammals and reptiles and birds may have evolved from just a handful of species, for that matter so could all life on earth. But in just a few thousand years? The flood supposedly occurred 4000 years ago; it’s impossible for that much biodiversity to evolve that fast. And the even bigger, and much more crucial question, is that there is absolutely no evidence that the flood ever occurred.
Noah would’ve had to take animals from the oceans as well, since the ocean habitat would’ve been destroyed when the salt water was diluted with that much rain (fresh) water. And he would’ve had to take plants as well, since they wouldn’t have survived either. Which reminds me, where did the dove get the olive branch that it brought back to the ark? All of these inconsistencies tell me that the story’s little more than a metaphor.
A metaphor for what? For one, God always rescues the faithful, even out of apocalyptic scenarios. Also, there’s an environmental question here. Like you said, God destroyed the earth because of man’s violence. I wonder if God is talking about the way mankind destroys both himself and his environment. This follows shortly after the story of Eden, when humans lost immortal perfection because of the their own foolish pride. It’s almost as if, thousand of years before today’s environmental and social justice crises, God is beginning His book by telling us that our greatest enemy is not the devil, but ourselves. After all, the devil can only tempt us; it is by our own free will that we destroy ourselves. To support this point I leave you with this:
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)
The one thing that St. Paul fails to mention, because it alone can separate us from God, is ourselves.
When read metaphorically, the opening chapters of Genesis have this powerful story to tell; when read literally, it’s nothing more than simple history. It’s obviously not literal because there’s so many insurmountalbe problems that come with a literal interpretation; read figuratively, and it’s much more powerful.
March 17, 2006 at 4:40 am #43518
If every one went back and read things
I have said
I do believe in that things can change. and definetly in speciation.
I have different views on the specifics though.
And that their are certain "laws" or rules of nature that prevent some kinds of evolution. I think in the future scientists will understand what those lmits are and taxonomy needs to be changed.
ooh i got to get to bed have work tomorrow…
but it could happen that fast, and there is evidence of a flood.
talk more tomorrow or Saturday.
I have to stay on top of these conversations or I get lost. 😕
one more thing i just saw on the science channel today ‘evolution" 😆
that sharks could have survived catastrophies. and plants can survive time submerged. and i still have doubts that water literally covered the whole earth, yes it was all affected in one way or another, but like i said the deluge was primarily dircted at mankind in one area.
Did you know the tsunami last year tilted the earth? that was only a part f the earth and yet it had an effect on the whole earth. amazing 😯
March 17, 2006 at 4:55 am #43520
I’m certainly interested to hear what evidence you have that this flood occurred and that evolution can occur so fast. I believe there’s about 40 million or so species alive today; how could so many have come from only a handful in just a few thousand years? 4000 may seem like a lot, but evolutionists claim that those same 40 million species took 4 billion years and creationists still complain that it isn’t enough time. Now you’re trying to say that it occurred literally one million times faster? I’m definitely very interested to see how you will answer these questions.
March 17, 2006 at 5:12 am #43524
Pardon my reposting, but I forgot to mention:
Plants can survive time submerged, up to a point. Genesis tells us that Noah was in the ark for almost a year:
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows ofthe heavens were opened. (Gen 7:11)
In the six hudred first year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and saw that the face of teh ground was drying. (Gen 8:13)
Plants cannot suvive eleven and a half months underwater. And yet, the dove returns with an olive branch. Where did it find such a thing, if all the trees were dead?
Also, I don’t doubt that the rotation of the earth was affected by the tsunami, and that Noah’s flood could’ve done the same, but I fail to see the connection or how this could be used as evidence that the flood actually happened. Please explain.
March 17, 2006 at 11:06 pm #43620
here is one for starters:http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/
sea shells found on high mountains.
mammouths and rhinocerous found on high cliffs in Siberia
Quick frozen animals found in muck and ice.
For example mammouth found in Siberia,
still had vegetation in mouth and flesh was etible when
thawed. These deep freezes would have accompanied
the flood in polar regions of the earth.
yjere is a ton of stuff about the flood for and against but I
like to find the most objectionable and credible sourse.
There was a good program on National Geographic and
evidence thus far found supporting o great flood.
I have seen other similar programs on science channels too.quote :
If you want to call it evolution go ahead.
See I am getting confused as to what peoples view of
I do not believe things can just mutate in to other things.
Oh I had to come back and edit (add) to this because it will
confuse some of you.
I believe in genetic mutations that cn be passed to offspring,
after all its in the bible. What I mean is mutation from say a
cat to a horse or a dog etc..
I believe what is possible and observable.
And a good example of rapid diversification of a species is the wolf.
Just as an example.
Noah was told by God what to take on to the ark
and since he was the originator of the genetic codes
of everything he would know which families would be
able to produce new species. The genes were not as branched
out and it was more possible then, as more things divd=ersified
they became distinct species and genetic barriers were created.
Sorry I just cant articulate it very well.
There are laws or rules of genetics.
once a cookie is baked its baked!! 8)
March 17, 2006 at 11:46 pm #43624
one mutaion for example that I believe in (BECAUSE IT IS A FACT) is the delta32 mutation. and I hope in the future scientists can get that in to us but that tech is beyond us currently. The only way now is sexual inheritance, so if you want your kids to have a copy find someone with it, or if you have a copy and they do too all the better.
March 18, 2006 at 1:17 am #43626
This is because the mountains are pushed up when two plates of the earth’s crust collide together; thus, ground that used to be the sea floor becomes a mountain range (for example, the Himalayas).quote :
Couldn’t they just have lived there naturally? Sort of like mountain goats?quote :
I’m not quite sure if this could be caused by a flood. Simple rapid temperature change seems more probable. Around here I’ve seen the temperature drop or rise as much as 20F in one hour. I can easily picture this happening in an ice age climate, sending the temperature from a bit above freezing, to significantly below fast enough to create exactly those effects.quote :
We’re not talking about cats evolving into horses; we’re talking about all of them having a common ancestor.quote :
Noah was told to take every animal "according to its kind." If you define this as families instead of species, then still have a lot to account for. First of all, the ark would’ve had to support literally hundreds of thousands of organisms, including land and aquatic animals and plants, and enough food to support all of them for an entire year. As much as elephants eat, that’s a lot of plants; for carnivorous animals, it means taking much more than just two pairs of each herbivore. And you still haven’t answered where the dove got the olive branch. What happened after they exited the ark? Noah immediately sacrificed some of the animals, and it wouldn’t have taken long for the carnivores to get hungry and start looking for food. If just one herbivore any kind dies, that kind goes extinct. If Noah took many more than just two of each, then the ark’s too small; if he took just one pair of each, then there wouldn’t have been enough to survive very long after they got out. Last of all, wouldn’t each kind just gone extinct anyway through too much inbreeding? I can’t see that as helping the evolution of the organism at all.
March 18, 2006 at 1:56 am #43630
Hey nobody really listens to anything on here so why bother any more
March 18, 2006 at 7:13 am #43640quote Linn:
Haha, don’t give up Linn. Just because there may be evidence contrary to your belief, does not mean there should be disbelief in God.
March 18, 2006 at 12:13 pm #43653quote :
I donot think that the animals that you have listed can evolve in 10,000 years to such a great diversity if you accept evolution.May it was some Bugga Bugga that made it diversify 😆 😆 .Nice try to defend the bible.Sorry that you donot have many partners to defend you neither do I have[in this topic]I know that Alex would probably try to defend me in other topics.Hey Linn may be you can say that God gave Noah each animals DNA and Noah with the help of God turned them into animals after the flood.That means Noah is the father of Genetics. 😆 😆 .I think Alex’s defence for the Bible was much better than yours he did say that it was just a moral story.Don’t get angry with me it was just my opnion in this topic.I am really sorry if my words seems to sting your faith. 🙁
March 18, 2006 at 1:39 pm #43664
I believe in God, but I don’t think that requires me to punch holes in modern science. Rather, I believe modern science represents a much more complete description and understanding of God’s creation. They are not mutually exclusive; rather I believe they are mutually supporting.
I hope that’s not the impression you got. I’ve paid attention to everything you’ve said and I’ve considered it; the only reason I still disagree is because I don’t believe you have yet presented verifiable evidence to back up what you’re claiming. It’s nothing against you personally; it’s a matter of evidence and truth. I’m sorry if I’ve offended you, but this is what I believe it all boils down to.
March 18, 2006 at 2:44 pm #43667quote damien james:
I’m not giving up damien
its not that there is evidence contrary to my belief I think I stated before that my "beliefs" are not currently popular. The point is I give references but no one bothers to read them or think abiout any other points becuse they are predudiced in their oppinions because of what has beeen taught to them as facts since grade school. And could they even admit if contrary evidence was presented that there may be something to examine?
Another thing. is has become apparent that no one knows what I believe.
Because they overlook important points I have stated.
I think in the future we will find out more and i believe genetics is the biggest key.
The Government Genome project
If someone sites a reference I do my best to read it and think about it.
Some of my thoughts may be not entirely correct and some of yours.
I think my basic thought is right, however that every thing we see is the product of design. not random self assembly.
We are only able to accomplish what is allowed by the "laws" you call nature. We dont have all the answers as yet.
These laws must be followed in order for things to function with order. If they are not followed there are consequences.
As what happened in Noahs day,
Some scientist laughed at other things in the bible,
and so being closed minded never bothered to test
Those who although did not personaly believe and
yet kept an open mind,
tested to see if these things were possible and
discovered that they were.
We can glean wisdom from the ancients because
they were closer to the origen of the earth and how
things transpired, having been in contact with God directly,
(Or you can call him (Other wordly beings) if you want.
Yes they(humans) 😆 ( I had to come back and add
that cause no one reads context), did not have the modern
tech that we do but they
were probably more intelligent than us.
Reminds me of a saying:
I have a headache
Here! Take this herb
early twentieth century:
I have a headache:
Here! take this pill
I have a headache;
Here! eat these herbs,
you need enzymes and vitamins.
think of who we learned about aspirin from?
The bible holds many keys if applied scientificaly
they are valid.
Sorry I am just babbling I guess cause
no one is going to listen,
erhaps we should think about evolution like this;
(its the truth)
It is a theory, and theories can be modified can they not?
Or even disprooved. The problem is many scientists have
come to despise the
creator and instead worship the creation.
Funny, but come to think of it,
that was prdicted to happen 😉
well I have things to study and practice so I have to stop myself from comming on here. I waste a lot of time (like tv wastes time)
I am not a hater though just because you all believe differently. Maybe you are all correct hah??? 8)
so be it you are right and I am wrong.
After all, its taught in school, the same as it was taught to me as a child that the "Indians were BAD and the white/spaniards were good. 🙄
I never believed that one either.
March 18, 2006 at 3:20 pm #43669
Linn, I read the links you provided. I found them overly quick to draw conclusions, ignorant of other possible interpretations, and overall scientifcally lacking. I think you’re too quick to judge that because we disagree with you means we aren’t listening.
I do agree with some things you said, especially about wisdom of the ancients. It’s amazing how little some things change, and one thing that remains constant is that people just keep getting stupider and stupider. That said I don’t think the ancients had that much going for them as far as scientific knowledge. As for the ancients being closer to the beginning, it’s a drop in the ocean compared to how long the universe has been around. I also think it’s possible to communicate with God today just directly as Moses or Abraham might have done; I don’t think God changes so anything possible back then must surely be possible today.
Well, I hope there’s no hard feelings. Have a nice day.
March 18, 2006 at 3:28 pm #43672
people arnt getting stupider just "Ret-AH-ted" 😆
March 18, 2006 at 4:34 pm #43682
Yeah, and I’m so retarted I can’t even spell retarted. 😆 Did I get it righ that time? 😕
March 18, 2006 at 7:54 pm #43691quote Linn:
That is very good point. Today with way we study evolution and trace lineages, it is absolutely imperative to fully understand molecular biology, genetics, proteomics, and biochemistry to their fullest to stay ahead in the world of evolutionary biology. Morphological characteristic and environmental research is still important, but evolution conference I attended at uni pointed out how we are concentrating at molecular level more than any other to understand evolution now that technology is available. The professor showed how jobs relating to evolutionary research are rapidly falling from Darwin’s tactics and are focused in the lab and that many zoologist and others are left in cold when it comes to research opportunites related to evolutionary biology because they do not have strong enough background in genetics, molecular analysis and organic chemistry.
March 19, 2006 at 6:45 am #43720
You can never say Darwin was right because times will change and different theories will replace Darwin’s theory[Hope it is written by David George and Alex will help me ].You can never tell one thing is always true and surely one day I will soar up like a vulture in the cloud of Mysteries.
March 19, 2006 at 5:07 pm #43732quote alextemplet:
"ret-AH-ted" is the Boston retarded
remember I said that in an other conversation ❓ ❓ ❓ 🙄 🙄 🙄
March 19, 2006 at 11:43 pm #43754
Yeah, but I’m Cajun, and we feel absolutely no obligation to use proper spelling or grammar in any language. I believe our term would be coyon; I’m not quite sure how that translates but it’s probably something close to your Bostonian retahted.
March 20, 2006 at 12:09 am #43756
around here we also pronounce idea with an r at the end:
And we call liquor stores the "packy"
probably started with prohibition.
eccentric massachusans 😆
is any one interested in study of genetics?
I wish I were younger maybe that is what I would study.
for now I may just learn on my own about it.
I find it so interesting.
for example,scientist have found the aging gene
(I read somewhere cant remember)
where, the news or national geo mag…anyways
I did read it
they do not yet know why we should’nt be living indefinetly.
well here is some interesting links if it works.
for reading if any one is interested:
http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?enc … r&ie=UTF-8
March 20, 2006 at 12:59 am #43762quote Linn:
It is because most autosomal cells do not produce telomerase. Why they do not, is the problem I think.
March 20, 2006 at 1:03 am #43763
March 20, 2006 at 2:56 am #43767
So who’s gonna sell the telomerase pills? sign me up!
March 21, 2006 at 1:50 pm #43892pankaajParticipantquote deostroll:
Nature operates & we play. Is it u thinking abt.?
Nature don’t let us survive in any way. we have to survive for ourselves for our specie & not for nature. 8)
March 25, 2006 at 1:22 am #44178quote :
I named one in the other thread but it got deleted. 😥
I have to write it all over a 🙄 again
The wolf and family. and it happened in our
present geological "day" My source is a book on
wolves with description of the evolutionary branching.
I will write more details later if your interested. 🙂
March 25, 2006 at 1:34 pm #44224
March 25, 2006 at 5:09 pm #44239
Type and kind not really relevant. You should start with species, genus, etc. and work your way back I think.
March 25, 2006 at 10:41 pm #44262quote :
Ok please stand by 🙂
I am not sure whay you mean? by type and kind
but I am only going to write what the book says.
starting with canidae 🙂
but here is some net references for now:
If you feel like doing some reading 😆
http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?enc … r&ie=UTF-8
March 26, 2006 at 5:53 am #44281
I think what damien means to say is that you should use taxonomic terms for groups, such as genus, family, order, etc., instead of using generic terms like type or kind. Type or kind could be anything and might serve only to confuse us. It’s better to specify exactly what you’re talking about.
I don’t have time right now to read over everything you posted, but I took a quick glance at one site and it says that all members of the Canidae family evolved from a common ancestor existing 7-10 million years ago, so I’m not sure how this supports your suggestion that this happened in less than 10,000 years. The website that I looked at is:
I’d type more but I just got home from work and I’m tired; I’m sure you know the feeling. Have a nice day.
March 28, 2006 at 12:52 am #44408Biologic26Participant
Ok, I understand the evolution of behavior an species from my intro to evolutionary principles class, but I am still lost on the definition of "life."
*In grade school difined as ablility to reproduce… I college it went to ablility to replicate, so a Virus can fit in to the definition, but now with pyrons??? where do we draw the line between biotic and abiotic?
March 28, 2006 at 4:42 pm #44460
Before I go on, I just want to clarify some things.
If you are looking for terms of class and divergence from,
I can not answer that because there are no facts that support
evolution from mammalia in general and which species came
from what. I believe we will be finding that out exactly in the
future with genetics:
"The pattern of genetic relatedness between all species indicates a branching tree that implies divergence from a common ancestor. Within this tree of life, there are also occasional reticulations where two branches fuse, rather than separate. (For example, mitochondria are organelles found in the cells of plants and animals. Mitochondria have their own genes"-Lenski
For now, there is only spectulation with
evolution. We do not have all the info yet
and I only look for facts.
remember I am a creationist and go by the bible as reference.
The original conversation I believe was focused on What
Noah would need to have brought on the ark that could
have in our present day evolved to the species we see.
Also I need to clarify what I believe tbecause I think
you are confused .
This is what I believe:
"The process that many people find most confusing about evolution is speciation, which is not a separate mechanism at all, but rather a consequence of the preceding mechanisms played out in time and space. Speciation occurs when a population changes sufficiently over time that it becomes convenient to refer to the early and late forms by different names. Speciation also occurs when one population splits into two distinct forms that can no longer interbreed. Reproductive isolation does not generally happen in one generation; it may require many thousands of generations when, for example, one part of a population becomes geographically separated from the rest and adapts to a new environment. Given time, it is inevitable that two populations that live apart will diverge by mutation, drift, and selection until eventually their genes are no longer compatible for successful reproduction. "
Ok with that out of the way…
I wanted to show the divergence of species that could come from one "kind" as described in the bible.
One kind would be members of the canidae family.
most specifically, canis. And would happen in our common "day"
or present geological period that we are in now.
For one thing,
"over a period of ten thousand to fifteen thousand years,
humans have experimented with and selectively shaped
the characterists of the wolf,
creating domestic dogs."
Then there are wolf-dog hybrids, coy-dog hybrids,
coy-wolf hybrids, etc
These are the kind of examples that are factual.
and not speculative.
I am not finished with my research,
as to fox, jackal, etc…
March 29, 2006 at 3:15 am #44501
That is fine you believe in creationism, but because biology all tied together by evolution, it is hard to understand biological concepts fully with creationist point of view.
Humans and domestic dog is example of artificial selection. But domesticated is of one species still, and speciation deals with seperate species, not breeds. Dog and wolf still same species. familiaris for domesticated dog refers to sub-species, not actual species. Both are species of Canis lupus. If this is argument for Noah, sorry, but not very convincing.
And "kind" still not relevant. As alex said, kind could be anything.
March 29, 2006 at 4:07 am #44509
damien what creationist view are you referring to?
Everything in the bible is in full harmony with scientific
facts. It was scientific a long time before science was even
Why is everyone so negative and closed minded, predudiced
and stuck in the box? Is it because of the uneducated religious
people of the past who have made you think there
is no science in creationism or the bible? The bible was actualy
written for educated people. It is humans who kept people in the
dark ages so long that common people never even read the bible.
actualy dogs and wolves ARE seperate species,
Wolf: Canis lupus
Dog: Canus familiaris
they are not subspecies.
An example of a sub species would be
lycaon (Eastern Timber Wolf)
one of the subspecies of Canus lupus in North America
(there are as many as 24 subspecies)
all Noah needed to bring on the ark was canis lupus
and we would get (to name a few):
and their subspecies .
I am researching about the south American fox
that is reputed to be able to breed with other canus.quote :
And I do not refute that.
but the point is it said in genesis according to their kind,
so that would be what geneticists will find out in the near future.
So the bible didn’t say according to the class
or order or genus or species.
They didnt talk like that back then.
March 29, 2006 at 5:34 am #44532
If from literal translation, bible says that organisms were created as seperate species, not as descending from common ancestor. This is creationist view. It is very important to understand how species are genetically interrelated to understand biology with depth.
And you forgot to list full taxonomic name of domestic dog. Canis lupus familiaris. Wolf is Canis lupus. familiaris indicate sub-species. I am sorry but this is still same species by and by.
Here is excerpt from well documented article. If you do not want to believe, that is up to you:quote :
And many scientists believe in religion as being in harmony with evolution as religions are just natural tenet of human evolution providing further examples for evolving, so concept of religion does not go against evolution.
March 29, 2006 at 7:37 pm #44587
Canis is a tricky example. I personally can’t think of any other examples in natural history where the morphology and personalities of a species was specifically manipulated through selective breeding by another species than humans. I can’t think of any other species that has "pets". Symbionts, yes. Parasites, yes. But pets? no.
If you were to really get into canis evolution, you’d need to analyze all the selective forces. You’d soon see (I believe) that canis evolution mirrors our current human evolution in many ways.
The point: Canis evolution does not necessarily fit the pattern defined by "Natural Selection". It may be an example of rapid (relatively 20-100 ty) morphological change in a species, but you need to look at the context.
March 29, 2006 at 10:02 pm #44600
That’s a very good point, Astus, but I assume you’re talking specifically about domestic dogs? Because I think wild canids are significantly older, possibly predating hominids. This link indicates that all canids, wild and domestic, are descended from a common ancestor living seven to ten million years ago:
Lynne, I agree with your faith in the Bible, but I think you’re taking parts of it a bit too literally. The creation and flood stories in Genesis contradict themselves, so how can they be seen as literal truth? It’s almost as if this is God’s way of telling us that these stories are not literal history, but metaphors for spiritual and moral truths.
March 30, 2006 at 11:03 am #44640
I am sorry that I am deviating from the topic but here is something nice
The process of evolutionary selection and change can be illustrated by the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant (e.g., Grant & Grant, 1989; Grant & Grant, 1993); this research is nicely captured in Weiner’s (1995) Pulitzer Prize winning narrative. For several decades the Grants have been studying the relation between ecological change on several of the Gal?font> pagos islands–Daphne major and Genovesa–and change in the survival rates and physical characteristics of several species of finch that reside on these islands, often called Darwin’s finches. One of these finches, the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis), resides on Daphne major and ecological change on this island has been shown to result in changes in the average beak size of individuals of this species from one generation to the next (Grant & Grant, 1993). Figure 1.1 shows that individual medium ground finches naturally vary from each other in beak size, as well as for other physical characteristics. To the left is an illustration of an individual with a relatively small beak and to the right is an individual of the same age and sex with a relatively large beak. The distributions show that the beak size of most individuals will be in-between these two extremes.
For the medium ground finch, and in fact for all of Darwin’s finches, the size and shape of an individual’s beak determines which foods can be eaten and which foods cannot. When food sources (e.g., seeds, insects, etc.) are plentiful and varied there is little relation between beak size and survival and reproductive rates. Under these conditions, most of Darwin’s finches–within and across species–survive and reproduce. When foods are scarce, individual birds tend to specialize in one food source (e.g., seeds) or another (e.g., insects) depending on the size and shape of their beak. Under these conditions, some food sources are usually more plentiful than others. Individuals who are able to specialize–due to beak size and shape–in a relatively abundant food source survive and reproduce in greater numbers than do individuals whose beak size and shape forces them to specialize in a scarce food source.
To illustrate, there was very little rain on Daphne major in 1973. The result of this drought was an 84% decline in the quantity of foods available to Darwin’s finches and a sharp increase in finch mortality rates (Weiner, 1995). For Darwin’s finches, life or death depended greatly on beak size. One of the foods that was still relatively plentiful during this time was the seeds of the caltrop plant (Tribulus cistoides). These seeds are encased in mericarps–shown in the center of Figure 1.1–which are armored with spikes and relatively large, at least for a finch. Some medium ground finches or fortis were able to exploit this food source, whereas others were not.
fortis with bigger beaks can crack the mericarp and gouge out the seeds faster than those with smaller beaks. Tiny variations are everything. A fortis with a beak 11 millimeters long can crack caltrop; a fortis with a beak only 10.5 millimeters long will not even try. "The smallest grain in the balance" can decide who shall live and who shall die. Between a beak big enough to crack caltrop and a beak that can’t, the difference is only half a millimeter (Weiner, 1995, p. 64).
During this time medium ground finches with relatively large beaks survived in greater numbers than did conspecifics (recall, member of the same species) with relatively small beaks. To make matters worse, survivors with relatively small beaks were at a mating disadvantage. It appears that short-beaked males were weaker than their better fed large-beaked peers, which appeared to result in a difference in the vigor of the courtship displays of small- and large-beaked finches. Female medium ground finches choose mates based on the vigor of their courtship display and thus preferred large-beaked males. The combination of differential survival rates and female choice–a feature of sexual selection discussed in Chapter 2–resulted in a measurable shift in the next generation’s average beak size (beak size is heritable), as illustrated in Figure 1.1. The leftmost distribution represents the beak size characteristics of medium ground finches before the drought and the rightmost distribution represents these characteristics after the drought. Just after the drought, individual differences in beak size are still evident, but the average beak size has now increased and there are fewer individuals with extremely small beaks and more individuals with extremely large beaks.
For the medium ground finch having a beak that is larger than average is not inherently better than having a beak that is smaller than average, it is only beneficial during periods of drought. Several years after the drought, in 1982-83, an especially strong El Ni??ont> o event resulted in a 14 fold increase in rainfall on Daphne major (Grant & Grant, 1993). Following this heavy rainfall, the number of caltrop plants and their mericarps decreased significantly and the number of smaller seeds available on the island increased significantly. "Mechanical efficiency of handling small seeds appears to be a feature of finches with small beaks" (Grant & Grant, 1993, p. 114). The result was small-beaked individuals survived in greater numbers than did large-beaked individuals and small-beaked males were preferred as mating partners (presumably due to more vigorous courtship displays). The survival and reproductive advantages of small-beaked individuals was evident for at least 6 years following the El Ni??ont> o event. After several generations, the average beak size of medium ground finches was now smaller than it was just after the drought–the distribution had shifted back to the left!
An equally important finding was that these selection pressures only effected beak size and not other physical characteristics (e.g., leg length) (Grant & Grant, 1993). In other words, under difficult conditions–those resulting in strong selection pressures–evolutionary selection acts quickly (sometimes in one or a few generations) and selectively (effecting only those traits that directly influence survival and reproduction). The process of relatively fast evolutionary selection and change is not restricted to Darwin’s finches. It has also been demonstrated with a number of other species (e.g., Reznick, Shaw, Rodd, & Shaw, 1997; Seehausen, van Alphen, & Witte, 1997), including perhaps humans (Holliday, 1997). On the basis of change in relative bone size (e.g., femur, that is thigh bone, length) comparing fossils dating from 6,000 to 30,000 years ago to modern populations, Holliday concluded "that the current patterns of body form in Europe go back no farther than 20,000 years" (Holliday, 1997, p. 444).
March 30, 2006 at 3:05 pm #44651quote :
No the literal septuagint translation from hebrew is kind/s. And each
kind produced was "good."
logicaly, if he is the creator/s he knew about what kinds
of animals would produce the variety we see today?
Unless you dont believe in a creator (usualy its God to most)
The biblical "kinds" seem to constitute divisions of life-forms
wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within it’s limits.
The boundary between kinds is to thus be drawn at the point
where fertilization ceases to occur,
twhere it could occur then and how it may occur now.quote :
I am just a stupid woman from Massachusetts, and I must have imagined that I used the genus and species in my identification. 😕 ❓quote :
Thank you for this article, I actually have continuously
said in other threads, that species should be defined
with sterility as the limiting factor. They are finaly getting it correct.
And the books I have were written 3 years after 1993,
so I guess these people are ignorant too, and also my college
professors anfd fellows who can not keep up with the ever changing classifications.
In addition not every one adheres to the ASM.
Although since you pointed this out I can agree with
this classification, but they should add coyotes to it
and possibly a few others.quote :
Whatever you want to
believe in I dont really care.
Then are you saying you have a religion?
And believe in god? Then you dont believe in full evolution?
What I keep saying and I said before is that what
I say somehow gets misconstrued and I think you
just want to argue instaed of listen to what I say cause
maybe you think I am an idiot..
What I am interested in is the facts and truth and not to what is biologicaly possible.
And also in the fact that the bible is scientific.
not descibed in modern terminology but still scientific
way before modern times.
I would say more but I am trying to be polite.quote :
I just love that so much I had to repeat it. 😆
Ya and no one has to believe the well documented
articles that I have cited either. 😛
March 30, 2006 at 3:36 pm #44656quote Linn:
I’m sure you’ll disagree but to me, as well as to damien, kind sounds a lot like species. Unfortunately for both of us, the Bible doesn’t clarify exactly what that term means, so I guess one opinion’s as good as the other.quote :
Does anyone really question this? I thought species were always defined that way.quote :
I’m a bit confused as to what you mean by "full evolution," but I believe in God and also evolution, and so do many other people, and I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.quote :
I agree that facts and truth should take precedence over possibilities, but sometimes it isn’t possible to determine absolute fact or truth, and it boils down to what’s the most likely possibility. So while I agree with you to a point I wouldn’t throw out possibilities altogether.
That’s all I have to say for now. Have a nice day! 😛
March 30, 2006 at 3:51 pm #44659quote :
Ya would think so 😉
apparently not though 😕
You have a nice day too 🙂 8)
March 30, 2006 at 3:57 pm #44660quote AstusAleator:
And I think Canis is an excellent study for evolution.
March 31, 2006 at 1:59 am #44702
There are different ways of defining species:
Linn what you’re defining as species fits best in the Typological Species Concept.
Typological Species Concept Assigns species according to type (eg all rats are same sp. and all mice are same sp. etc)
Nominalistic Species Concept: simply groups similar organisms together (not really based on much science, just casual observation). This is similar to the…
Morphological Species Concept: Based on morphology. More scientific, based on detailed morphological observation.
Biological Species Concept: Based on the ideas of successful reproduction and reproductive populations.
Evolutionary Species Concept: Takes a evolutionary-taxonomic approach to defining species. Attempts to assign species classification based on what can be observed on their possible or probable ancestral linkages.
Karyotypic/Genetic Species Concept: Defines species based on their genetic similarities.
Of course, most biologists try to take all of these concepts into account. These are/were the major schools of thought though.quote Linn:
So what’s the purpose of this conversation? The FACT could be that we and everything around us are simply an idea that can interact with itself. Maybe all is illusion. Perhaps this existence you percieve is just the result of random interactions of unknown forces. Or the fact could be that an all powerful god assembled the cosmos and created all life on earth. Or the fact could be that matter assembled randomly into solar systems and life abiogeneticly evolved on earth.
Ideas and possiblities are ALL we have. I’m sorry but what you call truths, I call ideas.
Yes the Bible is scientific in that it takes observations of phenomenon and attempts to explain them. The science stops there, though, as the "answers" provided are taken as absolute fact.
ugh, sorry to propagate the argument when it’s probably not going to have a constructive conclusion…
March 31, 2006 at 5:58 am #44717
Linn, I did not want to make you mad and sorry if I did. I like you and think you are nice person. I was giving just my observation of religion as being part of naturalistic view, as having evolved alongside of human. So that we can study evolution of philosophy as well as human history is interesting to me.
March 31, 2006 at 4:04 pm #44755
Does anyone know what rules are used to determine levels above species, such as genera, families, orders, etc.? That could probably figure as an important topic in this discussion as well. And what rules are used to determine subspecies?
April 1, 2006 at 9:51 am #44804
Now tell me guys why are you interpreting the Bible.Can you say that the ancient Jews had any knowledge of evolution.The Bible gives interpretation where it has to for example the crucification of Jesus Chirst.It says that the crucification was to wash our sins.Here there is an interpretation because they thought that the readers of Bible might wrongly understand that Chirst was weak hence could not defend himself.The Bible only accepts Creation and not Evolution.Also it is said in the Bible that those plants of one race can only produce the same race.For example mango plants only give mango fruits or produce only mango plants.This does tell plants did not evolve.
April 1, 2006 at 4:13 pm #44822
Alex, the same rules I listed above are used to determine the higher taxonomic levels as well.
A very important tool in determining the levels of taxonomy is cladistics. It forms relationships based on information on selected traits. for example:
Say we have animals 1 through 10, and we identify 10 traits (a-j). Identify which animal has (1) or does not have (0) each trait, then try to arrange them in the most parsimonious fashion.
a b c d e f g h i j
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
So animal 1, according to this, would be the most ancestral, and 10 would be the most derived. Of course, not every diagram is this easy to arrange, but that’s the basic structure.
April 3, 2006 at 5:28 am #44967
I remember cladograms, haha. Been so long.
April 6, 2006 at 12:44 am #45208
Hello, hello, hello, everybody!!
it is I, your friendly pain 👿
What do you believe?
and do you really think the bible is not scientific
and if so why?
just curious, and want to listen to what you think 🙂
April 7, 2006 at 9:07 am #45308
Oh, I can’t decide if I should reply now (will be shorter cuz I’m tired) or wait til I’ve got some energy….
I guess I’ll reply now. *takes a deep breath*
At this point in my life I’m not exactly sure what I believe as far as the metaphysical or spiritual is concerned. I grew up in an incredibly conservative episcopalian(sp?) trinitarian protestant family. I lost my commitment to my faith when I was a freshman in highschool, but I didn’t really start changing my beliefs until around my sophomore year of college. To a degree, I think I’ll always have a part of me that believes everything I was taught as a child. More recently, I’ve begun to explore my spiritual side again, but keeping an open mind and open eyes. From the things I’ve felt and witnessed throughout my life, I can in no way deny the existence of a god or spirit. In fact, I’m sure something of that sort exists, and may even take an active role in human lives from time to time.
I do not believe that the Bible can be taken literally as scientific literature.
I do believe that it can be used for personal growth, and as an authority in one’s personal life.
If a person chooses to believe in Noah’s flood as a matter of faith, it becomes to them a testament of God’s wrath, power, wisdom, and benevolance. The lessons and meanings that can be taken from these stories are what are important in determining a Christian’s personal walk with God.
If scientific evidence contradicts literal biblical accounts, that doesn’t make the author a liar, nor does it discredit the Word that lies within. I have no doubt that the authors of these manuscripts felt the contents to be absolutely true, but more importantly, they knew that the meanings/implications/lessons/values contained in them were more important that the story itself.
Really you’ve got to step back and ask yourself, Why did the author write this? Or for the older tales, Why would a story like this be passed down in oral tradition?
I’d better get back to my previous statement, "I do not believe that the Bible can be taken literally as scientific literature." I say this because for every scientific "truth" that can be found in the bible there are a plethora of scientific amibguities or just plain impossibilities. A man that’s been dead for 3 days via crucifixion and impalement coming back to life is not possible, in any known scenario that can be defined by science. Neither is water turning into wine.
Now I will admit that there are some rather astonishing scientific observations mentioned in the bible, and I don’t doubt that the Bible provided a material basis for early science. After all, some of our earliest famous scientists were monks and clergymen.
The Bible makes observations, but it does not form testable hypotheses. It skips all the steps in the scientific method and goes straight to absolute truth. Furthermore this "truth" is perpetuated by dogma. That is why the Bible, and religious believes adhering to literalist interpretations of it cannot be scientific.
Can they be true? Possibly. I think our discussions on this matter in the past have blurred the line between science and truth, sometimes equating them. Calling the Bible unscientific is not the same thing as calling it untrue.
Now I’m going to bed. Nite
April 7, 2006 at 11:14 am #45319
when I find my dam glasses I can read that, 😡
I had three pair somewhere….I an barely see to write this.
This is what you (young uns)have to
look forward to :presbyopia 👿 👿
(hope I spelled that correct)
so I printed it out and will try to read it between work.
talk to ya later 🙂
April 7, 2006 at 2:51 pm #45329
Actually, Astus, that was a very well-made point, even if you were tired. Certainly gave me something to think about. I think I’ve been trying to say something like that but I was never able to put in words quite as well as you have. Good job! 😛
April 7, 2006 at 10:17 pm #45379
Thank you Dave,
I admire you for using your own mind instead of
just believing what you are told.
[quote :quote :
How about quantum physics.
Do you believe in that?
Can subatomic particles be here and there at the same time?
Is time travel possible?
will a watch have a different time than time standing still
if it gos the speed of light?
‘with God all things are possible" That is why he is God!!
God knows everything about physics, biology, all the sciences.
We have only scratched the surface.
Things that we have discovered that are possible could
hardly have been imagined only a short time ago.
I asked before how we can explain some things in the bible
that would be impossible for humans to have known in this
time frame? does any one have any thoughts about how they
got that information?
You say the bible makes observations, but actualy it explains every thing very convieniently for us. And it is in harmony with science, as I have said before it was explained with different words perhaps than we use today.
I wonder why all of a sudden there is such an element, exsisting to
subvert the bible which being inspired by God they are denying him.
There are so many things yet to be discovered,
I think it is a good idea to kep an open mind either way.
Things mentioned in the bible:
the way things were created, in harmony with science
genetic disease past on
quarintine of dead bodies
how disease is spread
how to make soap
prophesy that has come true
history in line with nabonidus, Joesephus
and other historians.
moving things without number in the ocean
those are things that lead me to trust that the writetrs of the bible were privy to information from other worldy sources. namely God, and the creator/s
One final thought
the account of the crossing the red sea on dry ground was
until about 15 years ago scoffed at until it was proven with
experiments to be possible.
April 8, 2006 at 11:09 am #45415
I have not yet read about quantum physics in my school.My favorite physics topic is Aerodyamics but we donot have anything about it in the Indian syllabus 🙁 .Anyway ou seem to have come to peace terms respecting both of our views.That is nice :).Talking about diseases I donot believe any reiglion’s God created them.Cos the same God often cures it being partial to humans and violating the laws of mutalism.Why does He do that.This will actually increase the Human population making it dangerous to the environment and also humans.
April 8, 2006 at 2:36 pm #45430
I want the same thing as all of you.
to find facts.
I think people can glean a lot from the bible.
For example, if some of the things in the bible are true,
we will find them eventualy.
What about the nephilim? (spelling?)
If there was a giant race, then Perhaps archeologists will unearth the bones one day. I need to see more than one fossil to believe though.
LIke the "hobbits" they found. There was more than one.
Even, if you approach things with skeptism, and dig for truth to disprove the bible, if then you find supportive evidence, will you concede?
April 8, 2006 at 3:44 pm #45436
Plenty of people try to disprove the Bible, but that’s pretty close to impossible. It’s already been firmly established as a historical record. Although the creation and flood stories can be questioned, they are only disprovable if they are interpreted literally. And the rest of the Bible stands very solidly upon historical evidence. Like I said in the medicine symbol thread, this "The Bible must be wrong." attitude is bull.
April 8, 2006 at 8:51 pm #45447
Perhaps you have noticed, as have I,
the current trend to subvert the bible.
I am sure it will get much worse.
April 9, 2006 at 4:01 am #45470quote :
I donot find any historical evidence for the Egyptian pharoah Shishak who looted Solomn’s treasure there is no such King in Egypt.Experts can only say it may be this King or that but no solid evidence.I have read in Egyptian inscriptions about the Israelites being slaves but no where about those Plagues.Also can you tell me during which kings period did moses appear.
April 9, 2006 at 4:40 am #45474quote David George:
The plagues are recorded in Egyptian hyroglyphs as well as the Bible, and this occurred during the reign of Rameses II. As for Pharoah Shishak, I think he is mentioned in the Egyptian record but under a different name; the same events are documented and that’s how we know which king it was.
April 9, 2006 at 12:07 pm #45480
Sheshonq-I is thought to be shishak.And can you provide me a link to the plagues written in egyptian.
April 9, 2006 at 1:01 pm #45493
google Egyptian history!!
This is weird!
the same thing discussion in Archeology.
I just wrote about this!
Shishak was an Egyptian king also known as Sheshonk (1)
from Egyptian records Shishak is regarded as the founder
of the Libyan dynasty, and generaly believed to have ruled
according to biblical records,
Shishak invaded Judah in 993 B.C.E. captured
fortified cities and surrender from Jerusalem.
Archeological evidence to support this:
Stele fragment found at megiddo, in commemoration of his
victory, and also a relief on a temple wall at Karnak with the
list of numerous conquered cities, with a considerable number
listed that are located within the territory of the ten-tribe kingdom
The purpose of Shishaks campaign was to gain control of
important trade routes and thus extend Egyptian power.
I didn’t read anything in these links yet myself,
but you may find some info in one of these links (in case you dont believe me) 🙂
http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?enc … r&ie=UTF-8
April 9, 2006 at 1:39 pm #45499
born: 1593 B.C.E.
toward the end of Moses 40 year "sojourn" he was commisioned to spearhead a movement to deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage,
so that is 1593 -40=1553 pharaoh was????
the bible does not name the Pharaoh , nor the Pharaoh before, and there is no secular writings about these events.
Ramses 11 is often suggested because of references to the building of cities of Pithom and Raamses by the Israelite laaborers.
that is Logical I say.
then there are the Amarna tablets,
found at Tell el-amarna on the Nile, which some
scholors think refer to "Habiru" as the Hebrews,
but this is not conclusive.
As far as the plaugues go, I doubt much would be found in Egyptian tablets, as They were notorious for only recording victories and things that made them look good. The best chance is to find other (secular) writings in addition to the bible. 🙂
"God’s and Godesses" of Egypt, it is interesting to note that the ten plagues that God visited upon the Egyptians he humiliated them. Do you think they would record that? For example, the first plague the turning of the Nile in to blood, brought disgrace to the nile god Hapi.
April 9, 2006 at 3:11 pm #45507
I saw a documentary on the History Channel that showed how it was possible for all ten plagues to have occurred, and even explained how the Hebrews were able to cross the Red Sea (which in the original Hebrew text actually says Sea of Reeds). That same documentary also mentioned a heiroglyph that described a large of number of foreigners who lived in Egypt and left, and this record is dated to about the same time as the Biblical account.
April 9, 2006 at 3:42 pm #45510
Speaking of bible, what do people think here about the new Gospel of Judas that was found? About Jesus instructing Judas to turn him in? I thought it is interesting. There will be a special on THC pretty soon about it.
April 9, 2006 at 4:34 pm #45514
The Gospel of Judas is a bunch of lies; no credible historian should put his faith in it. For one thing, it was written almost 300 years after the other gospels, and that alone should say something about its inaccuracy. Also, the four Biblica gospels are among the most solid historical documents you can find. All four were written by people who never met each other and never met Jesus and yet they all agree on every major detail. Any historian will tell you that establishes their accuracy, and the fact that the so-calles "Gospel of Judas" contradicts them is only further proof of its inaccuracy.
A lot of scientists these days try to find ways to attack the Bible but all they do is make fools of themselves. I saw one guy on the news yesterday who claimed that John the Baptist and Jesus were co-Messiahs, and he claimed this was proven in the Gospels. Well he must not have read the Bible because the book clearly states that Jesus, not John, was the one true Messiah. I mean, people even asked John if he was the Messiah and he denied it, so how can this fool claim that he was?
Getting back to the Gospel of Judas, it was written by Gnostics, a group now know as heretics for their rejection of Biblical doctrine. The book’s sole purpose was to spread their propaganda, and it failed. Christians knew back then that the Gospel of Judas was a bunch of lies, so why should we give it any credence now?
April 9, 2006 at 9:50 pm #45540quote alextemplet:
oh I am not sure if I saw that, if it is going to be on again Alex,
please let me know, I love those type programs
cause I AM A GEEK!! 8)
I did hear of experiments that were conducted, where
due to the topography of the red sea and the prevailing
wind current in this area, it woul be possible for the red
sea to have parted, and no doubt this is why we read about
the wind leading them.
And I think I did see a national geo doc on the plagues too.
oops I had to add this: The red sea could only be parted in
one location only, I think that is what they said a narrow
corrider with deeper channels on each side. I believe that is the description.
April 10, 2006 at 1:18 am #45553
i’ve also watch a discovery program which says that the ‘parting of red sea’ could actually mean ‘the parting of reed sea’.
somehow, the early jew messed up their translation.
🙄 🙄 🙄
April 10, 2006 at 2:03 am #45556
Well, I have no interest in bible really, but have never heard of Gospel of Judas until now.
April 10, 2006 at 2:11 am #45557quote kiekyon:
No, the Hebrew actually did say "Sea of Reeds"; it was when it was translated into Greek that it became "Red Sea".
April 10, 2006 at 2:14 am #45558quote damien james:
That’s because it was only discovered recently, or rather, rediscovered. Like I said the early Church suppressed it for a reason, not the least of which was that the Canon of Scripture was already established by the time this "gospel" was written, so being written a few hundred years after the Bible the Gospel of Judas can in no way claim anything even close to equal authority to it.
April 10, 2006 at 7:51 am #45563
preview for gospel of judas
April 10, 2006 at 11:41 am #45571quote Linn:
You are Correct Linn.He was actually a libyan.Sometimes libyans got control of Egypt.Some scholars say that these plagues were against some
God of Egypt.But there is no God for Lice in Egypt.
April 10, 2006 at 11:48 am #45572
As I have said…
There exsists an…element
that is trying to subvert the bible
is there any other historical source under attach like this?
and it is the best source that exsists.
AS for the Judas scrolls, alex pointed out it was written three
hundred years later, I was not aware of that (I did watch
the National geographisc special last night but, alas I was
reading archeological info at the same time,
I should never do that. 😳
Well it will be on again and again. 🙄
But anyways…. even if Judas did write it himself, that would
be his twisted perspective, and at least it does show no
mention of the "crusification"
because Judas committed sucided prior to that,
Actualy some things in this scroll do colaborates with the
gospals, but not on the significant points,
that he was a traitor,
and Jesus would not have condoned that .
would any one ever turn in a beloved member of their family
to a corrupt, and violent government agency for reasons (trumped up charges brought about by people who hated you), namely priests)?
you knew they were innocent of?
only two reasons you would: 1.you are evil
2.you are totaly nuts
Although Judas did play a key role in the purpose of Jesus
becoming human to begin with did he not???
April 10, 2006 at 2:02 pm #45580
Why the Bible? Why do so many "scholars" feel the need to try to undermine it? Why don’t they try to attack the books of other religions? Wicca for example has a number of beliefs that rely on very little, if any, historical evidence, and the Koran seems to be a lot easier to disprove, historically, than the Bible. Why is the Bible the subject of so much heat?
April 10, 2006 at 8:19 pm #45602
Perhaps your memory of Christian history is not quite as strong as your grasp of Egyptian history…:wink:
The Christian Church (specifically, the Catholic Church) was hugely powerful in the past politically, and there were quite a number of popes who were… let’s say very politcally minded, and maybe not quite so spiritual. On top of that, wars were waged (think of the Crusades), and many people were brutally oppressed (think of the Inquisition). Under the yoke of the Church, it became very popular to hate it. A lot of people still haven’t gotten over that, and Bible bashing is still a very popular passtime for people who have a hard time letting things go.
April 10, 2006 at 8:51 pm #45605
Yes, I’m aware of Church history very much, in fact since you mentioned the Crusades the Muslims were as much to blame for that as the Christians. But you’re right that the Church hasn’t always been as spiritual-minded as it should’ve been, so maybe that’s part of the reason for a lot of the anti-Biblical attitudes around today. But what I don’t understand is that every other religion has been just as bad at one point or another, so why not attack them as well?
April 11, 2006 at 2:35 am #45622quote :
we sort of agreed on something.
Its a miracle!!!
just kidding David!! 😉 😛
April 11, 2006 at 2:47 am #45624quote Khaiy:
khaiy your posts are always so good and insightfull.
Have you seen the movie: The Kingdom of heaven?
One of my daughters favorite movies, of course that the
actors are so handsome helps to.
Well, she finaly got me to watch it, and it really makes
one think about things.
It does bother me that beautifull things can be used
and twisted, and perverted by people,
TRUE PURE christianity is beautifull!
Jesus said whovever lives by the sword dies by the sword.
the crusades was a "slap" in Jesus face. Its just a dam city. 🙄
But the bible is a beautiful book, and one of the best
historical references in exsistence.
BTW where is the author of this forum topic?????
and what are his thoughts on this subjet??
the definition of life?
April 11, 2006 at 3:11 am #45626quote Linn:
Haha, I think he abandoned his thread.
Christianity ok i guess. Make no difference to me what you believe in. I don’t really see any positive or negative that vaults one religion over another. They are all same to me in my eyes. Never really needed definition of what is righteous or unrighteous. Could care less.
April 11, 2006 at 3:31 am #45631
How the heck did we get onto this topic anyway? 😕
April 11, 2006 at 3:59 am #45633quote alextemplet:
well I sure as hell am not going back and read how.
but lets refresh the original post or abandon it. ❓
but I like our little conversation here,
we are so getting along 🙁 😛
I have some curious Quests but I better search to
see if it was already posted or
mithr )mod) will saysomething like
"use the search, its already been talked about…"
OK I am tired, because I
get dumber and silly when I am tired.
😳 Saying dumber just gave some body sneaking 8)
some fuel for a pm. 😳 8) oops ❗
who can it be???
goodnight (‘oiche mhaith’)
April 11, 2006 at 5:51 am #45640quote alextemplet:
The reason is simple and easy.The developed countries are mostly Chirstian countries[Most people are chirstians],And people living in developed countries have lot of things to see and learn and are also broad minded.Hence they often question things leading to Knowledge and insight of many things.Also many are busy and find less time to concentrate on religion so their children are not blocked by religion and also explore things outside and inside religion. When you see other countries Like Islamic countries the people are loyal to their religion and donot accept other things hence very few people Look outside their religion.It is also the same case to my country no matter which religion.That is the reason I often call myself an odd one out.
April 11, 2006 at 6:29 am #45643quote Linn:
If the Moses was born in 1593 B.C then the hykos kings would have ruled and probably the pharoah was Apepi 1[1600 to 1560] or Apepi 2.But Ramses II (c. 1278-1237 BCE) could’t be the king.
April 11, 2006 at 1:26 pm #45671jujuParticipantquote :
Well archeologists do not yet know who was king when as far as this go’s, That is why I said :
[quote]myself:Ramses 11 is often suggested because of references to the building of cities of Pithom and Raamses by the Israelite laaborers. [/quote
April 11, 2006 at 1:40 pm #45673jujuParticipant
well is it not us odd ones who are the deep thinkers?
you can think for yourself,
but keep an open mind,
do not let religion cloud your jugment of the bible.
I could have very well become an atheist if I had
not read it threw several times, and studied it, and
checked it out with secular references.
And also, be carefull, everything they teach in school
is not always proven, teachers orten project their own
opinions or the popular trends.,
If you want to understand
something you need to get the whole picture first,
you can not understand it from excerpts. Context is important.
Notice too, how some of the great scientists who
discovered things, were more often than not at odds
with conventional thinking. 🙂
April 11, 2006 at 3:24 pm #45686
. . . can’t . . . stop . . . posting . . .quote juju:
How do we know Moses was born in 1593BC? I remember reading that the heiroglyph record described a mass exodus of foreigners from Egypt leaving during the reign of Rameses II, and that’s why most scholars believe that Rameses was the pharoah during that time. In fact the Bible indicates that Moses was born during the reign of the previous pharoah and had to flee Egypt after killing an Egyptian soldier, and he did not return until after that pharoah had died so that he would no longer be blamed for the murder. So if you want to know when Moses was born it was probably sometime during the reign of Rameses’ predecessor.
Getting back to the heiroglyph record, why would such a large number of foreigners leave during a supposedly prosperous time during Egypt’s history? The best explanation would be if they lived under less than ideal circumstances, such as slavery, which begs the question of why did the Egyptians let so many perfectly good slaves go? They must have had a very good reason, such as plagues. So even though the Egyptian record is notorious for only including details that make the Egyptians look good, a little good sense and conjecture can reveal some rather deep parallels between the Bible and the Egyptian record. I think this is why most scholars believe it was Rameses.
On a related note, the dates that David gave for the reign of Rameses also fit in well with rest of Hebrew history. After wandering in the desert for forty years, the Hebrews conquered Canaan and lived under the rule of the Judges for about two hundred years before the establishment of the monarchy. The monarchy is believed to have been established around 1000BC, and so if you do the math it adds up well with the dates that David gave. So I think this further strengthens the case for Rameses being the pharoah of the Exodus.
Boy, I just can’t seem to get off of this topic, can I?
April 12, 2006 at 1:05 am #45748
I am out of the converation tonight,
Carl Sagan Cosmos is on and then more on space.
ch 227 science. In case you want to watch them from 8-11 and then repeats so you can watch it again 🙂
April 12, 2006 at 12:15 pm #45794
Now lets turn on to Zerah the ethiopian who attacked Asa king of judah[908-867].The Pharoah at that time was Osorkon 2.In Nubia it is not clear who the king was as they only developed writing later[Meriotic]And I do know a little of it.But there is no battle whatsoever during his period as far as I know.And Alex’s account could be correct as during Apepi 1[1600 to 1560] it was the time when Caananites entered Egypt and Rameses is my Favorite Pharoah but I know that he covers up a lot of things.I donot know about the plagues nor do I believe it but in the famous battle of Kadesh[Egyptians Vs Hitities] He annouced the end as a splendid victory but the truth was that both sides had good losses
April 13, 2006 at 3:14 am #45907
Did modern monotheism evolve from Zoroastrianism?
April 13, 2006 at 3:34 am #45912
continuing, on zerah,
and the force that came against Asa was a million warriors!
You seem to like history?
April 13, 2006 at 3:58 am #45914quote damien james:
No, the Hebrews had a monotheistic religion before Zoroaster, and the Egyptian pharoah Akhenaton tried (unsuccessfully) to create a monotheistic faith even before this.
April 13, 2006 at 4:04 am #45917quote :
was that the pharoah who built the temple city in the desert to Ra?
to worship the one god the sun?
April 13, 2006 at 9:59 am #45933quote :
Yup he tried but many people didnot accept it and so they did not respect his religion and also worshipped the older Gods mainly in the night when his officials were asleep and soon after he was dead the people rejoiced and also desroyed many of his Possesions.I think the God was Amun Ra who’s figure was a man and Ra’s figure was Half Falcon half Man.Now what about Zerah you don’t know about him in ancestral records and his Defeat doesn’t seem o be real to me.
April 13, 2006 at 12:06 pm #45940quote :
yes that is what would happen, his
succsesors scrached out, built over and etched over
anything pertaining to him, as if he didnt exsist.
I am glad there was still evidence found.
how bout the great sphinx?
was supossedly, re-worked )the face they believe has
been changed. Do you know anything about that?
RE: Zerah true, not enough is known, and often the biblical names of people were different from their other names. His successor probably wiped out anyhting of his too.
Imagine how much more we would know if they had not done that.
and as to the likelihood of defeat or not, there
have been other historical battles that have been won not due
to the size of the army, but in the strategies employed.
April 13, 2006 at 1:11 pm #45944quote Linn:
Yeah, the anceints were notorious for destroying evidence that their enemies existed. Did Tutankhamen’s successors try to destroy evidence that he existed? And that’s why his tomb stayed hidden for so long, because people forgot that he ever lived?quote Linn:
There’s a lot of ancient battles like that. In the Bible there were plenty of people, such as Joshua and David, who seem to have been very capable strategists. Greece and Rome won most of their battles despite often being outnumbered by 2-1 or more. In fact most historians agree that the most brilliantly fought battle in all of history was Alexander the Great’s victory at Gaugemela, where his army of 40,000 defeated a Persion army of possibly over 500,000. Alexander’s victory was due mainly to the superior drill, discipline, and professionalism of his army, and this has set the standard for most great militaries ever since. Every great commander since has used Alexander as a role model, and no one has ever been able to match his achievements.
But that’s enough bragging about myself. 😛
April 13, 2006 at 2:12 pm #45947
How do we know about Alexanders battle victories?
What if the bible was the only source?
oops guess we wouldnt believe it. 😕
April 13, 2006 at 3:19 pm #45950quote Linn:
Hehe, that’s exactly my point when I say that this "If it’s in the Bible it must be wrong!" attitude is completely foolish. But since you mention it Alexander is mentioned in the Bible in 1 Maccabees, although none of his battles are described. 1 and 2 Maccabees mainly deal with the Jewish resistance to Greek rule after Alexander’s death. But that’s just FYI.
So I suppose that, even though we can historically corrorborate Alexander’s existence from other sources, the fact that he’s mentioned in the Bible must mean that he never lived. 🙂
April 13, 2006 at 3:56 pm #45954
well its mentioned in Daniel too
but you know prophecy is not scientific, but
quantum physics is 😕
April 13, 2006 at 4:33 pm #45960quote Linn:
No, prophecy isn’t scientific, but when it has habit of coming true, as the Biblical prophecies do, one can only wonder as to the authenticity of the source.
April 13, 2006 at 4:47 pm #45965
This is true Alex ❗
LMAO what do we both have today off? 😆
April 13, 2006 at 4:56 pm #45968quote Linn:
Apparently. It’s Holy Thursday! 🙂
April 13, 2006 at 5:02 pm #45971
I’m suposed to be practicing guitar,
cleaning my house and studying math.
RE prophecy vs quantum physics
I catagorize them the same 😉
I believe both possible.
and they already employ quantum physics in things.
some things physicist believe are possible:
and and sub atomic particle re-combination
(like star trek) beam me up Scotty!
April 13, 2006 at 5:06 pm #45972
Well I don’t think they should be classed the same. Physics is science and is more or less easily verifiable or falsifiable through experimentation. Prophesy is very non-scientific and is only really verifiable or falsifiable when the prophecies come true, which could take thousands of years. Also it’s a lot easier to say if something is possible in science than it is with prophecies, since there’s a lot of false prophets who claim to know everything but are actually about as reliable as a dead piece of wood. It may look nice, but it burns up quickly.
April 13, 2006 at 5:10 pm #45975
I must go but I leave you this thought;
prophesy could be the result of application
of quantum physics 😉
April 13, 2006 at 5:12 pm #45976quote Linn:
??? 😕 ???
April 14, 2006 at 1:13 am #46006
April 14, 2006 at 2:06 am #46010
No, I’m not quite sure I can figure this out. Are you suggesting that the prophets conducted time travel?
April 14, 2006 at 2:57 am #46012
Alex, excuse me if I seem confused, as I said
you are a mystery. 8)
as to what exactly you believe,
I was catholic for a loooong time. So I know
what they are suposed to believe:
one God the father almighty CREATOR of heaven and earth….
(from the apostolic creed) that I had to say every day BTW
And …"thy" will be done on earth as it is in heaven
I believe these statements.
Do you agree?
so in view of that, what would you not believe in regards
to quantum travel and God? I mean he could explain the
principes of it to a gathering of the most renowned physicist
on earth, and some 🙂
"with God all things are possible.
And as a side point that has me scratching my head is
if quantum time travel is possible (theoreticaly) then how more crazy is any thing else. Doesnt those concepts just blow your mind?
they do mine. 🙂
Just musings on my part, dear ALex 🙂
How else could they know?
tomorow night BTW, is going to be a good one
on SCI channel on venus. I know yu are interested in astronomy eyc.
PS (edit added) said it’s theoretical because some actualy still deny it i guess, although demonstrated?
April 14, 2006 at 5:13 am #46018
I agree with everything you said, but I wouldn’t be so quick to call prophecies examples of quantum physics. I have no doubt, though, that God could’ve used quantum physics to achieve anything He desires.
A prophet, as the Bible defines it, is anyone through whom God speaks. God has to first speak to the prophet so the prophet can take that message to its intended recipient. This latter part of prophesy, the delivery of the message, is as basic as you and I talking to each other. The first part, God giving the message to the prophet, can be accomplished through simple prayer. In prayer I have been able to hear God’s voice and I have even seen Him in a few visions. I guess God could’ve used quantum physics, but I think He could’ve done it in other ways, too. Like stimulating neurons in my brain to cause me to see or hear something that isn’t physically there. This is why sometimes only one person can hear God or see a vision while people standing right next to Him can’t.
And think about this. If quantum physics is so awe-inspiring (and it is), how much more amazing is He who created it?
April 14, 2006 at 11:32 am #46036
venus and global warming, the search to find life on other planets
were getting closer!
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/artic … 0000000001
on the quantum travel and time.
yes, God would give the prophets this knowlege,
He being omniscent
but their being as babes in scientific knowlege
( not having any clue to omniscientific concepts) he
couldn’t very well talk to them as he would a
modern day scientist.
some extra terrestrial visiters called "angels" to
explain things in simple ancient "lay" terms.
Being omniscent God could "see" in to the future,
by applying quantum physics.
We have a description in Daniel
"celestrial chariot" that can move at
speeds in excess
of light, hover, and change direction
in any way.
just what was that "celestrial chariot"
In modern day if God was speaking to you or I,
he would not say celestrial chatiot, he would explain
it according to the knowledge of the message recipient.
Just questions to ponder.
No one has to agree or disagree.
just raise questions with 🙂
Think outside the box, and remember the bible has
always been read by ignorant people with the
exception of some monks etc, but was historicaly
only read by a handfull of people some with
"control" issues kWIM? I am not trying
to be derogatory, but very few have had the open mind
to actualy think about these things.
I still think its funny (but i said there is an "elment"
seeking to subvert the bible), how the bible first desribed
the earth as a circle, and yet all you hear is about some such
as Ancient Greek scientists, and Columbus etc.
who somehow figured it out first. And here were bible
writers being inspired to write things down.
this is because of the bible is not scientific bla, bla.
the bible was written for EVERYONE not just scientists.
And if you were going to describe something to a child
you need to describe it in a way THEY understand.
Of course there are new "scrolls" or information comming
in the future, as read about in Revelation, these new scrolls
undoubtedly will be more modern in the descriptions 🙂
April 14, 2006 at 2:37 pm #46049
Funny thing about the earth being round, we had that same discussion in the medicine symbol thread already! How the Greeks invented it, and even though the Biblical description of it is at least 1000 years older, so obviously Moses must’ve done some time travel and saw what the Greeks had invented and stole it from 1000 years earlier. Funny. 8)
April 14, 2006 at 6:37 pm #46069
There were a lot of strange things
going on there w/Moses. ❓
He was so curious as to see God.
but God would only let him sneak a peek
from afar, and even then had to "cover"
Moses eyes so to speak,
no doubt so Moses didnt get radiation
burns or something? lol
thing is that is only one example of knowledge
he could not possibly have had.
How about the "Mark" on peoples head and your sons
and daughters and their sons and …. on and on to the future.
so to speak?
could that be congenetal disease? sounds like that to me.
Of course bible writers didnt say , Iam letting you know that
the future generations will inherit congenetal disease from you 😆
they would say "What 😯 ❓ "
then God would 🙄
can’t explain calculus to a baby can you?
but we can understand those concepts today.
I think humans are finaly in middle school 😮
Interesting point I heard mentioned many time on cosmos and other science programs:
It will be very soon that we make contact with
other wordly beings.
that sends shivers. Of course that is just some astro-physicist
oppinion, but they must have "hard" evidence to say
that and not be laughed at.
good day to you!!
April 14, 2006 at 8:28 pm #46080
Yeah, that skin disease thing does sound interesting, although I wonder if it’s more of just a device used in the vision to distinguish between who follows the beast and who follows Christ. So much of Revelations is symbolic that it’s very hard to say with any certainty exactly what will or won’t happen.
But that does remind me of some funny jokes that I’ll have to post in the "Just for Laughs" thread! 😛
April 14, 2006 at 10:20 pm #46087
[quote="alextemplet"]Yeah, that skin disease thing does sound interesting, although I wonder if it’s more of just a device used in the vision to distinguish between who follows the beast and who follows Christ. So much of Revelations is symbolic that it’s very hard to say with any certainty exactly what will or won’t happen.
OK Alex, you have totaly lost me 😕
how did that come up?????
Enlighten me? 💡
(edit added) a minute later. 🙂
OK I think I get the drift. Revalation right?
April 14, 2006 at 11:02 pm #46090quote Linn:
This is problem I have with veiw of God in Christianity. If God is truly omniscient and all knowing, wouldn’t he forsee all the pain and misery in world before it was created? Therefore, God would be ultimately responsible for all of it. I mean, if I were about to beget a child knowing beforehand he would be a homicidal maniac, would I not be ultimately responsible for his crimes?
April 14, 2006 at 11:15 pm #46091quote damien james:
If you tell me today that you’re going to kill someone tomorrow, am I guilty of the murder? No, it is still you who killed, not I. If God does not allow evil to exist, then free will cannot exist. The only way for us to be truly free is to have the power to choose between good and evil. If God only allows us to choose good, then what good is that? We are robots, not people. God does not want a species of robots. If the only reason we do good and love God is simply because evil is not allowed to exist at all, then what good is that? But if we have a choice and choose of our own free will to love God and follow Him, then that is true love indeed. God desires a loving relationship with us, but love can never be forced, it must be a free choice. So if God does not allow evil, then He does not allow love, and the entire purpose of creation falls apart.
April 14, 2006 at 11:35 pm #46095quote :
I like that explanation, this is true
and life was a gift he gave because of his love,
to give life to other beings to enjoy.
Why do people still keep choosing to have babies
and bring them in to the world when we know how
crappy it can be.
pedophiles and other predators just ready to gobble
them up if they get the chance. 👿
and God can choose what he wants to look at
My guess is he never even looked in to the future
until after man screwed up and listened to evil,
likewise I give my kids the benefit of the doubt,
when they were growing up, if someone told me,
if you could look in to the future and see what choices
they woud make would you???
What if you did and saw your kid was going to
be a mass murderer? Maybe you could somehow prevent it???
April 15, 2006 at 3:27 am #46105quote Linn:
I think God does try to prevent it, in that He tries to convince us to change our minds, but He can never make that decision for us. He’s always knocking on the door and it’s up to us to let Him in or not. Remember the Hebrews in the desert. They had seen God perform some of the most powerful miracles in history. Plagues, parting the Red Sea, manna falling from the sky, water springing from rocks, etc. And what did they do? Complain. God gave them so much and they complained about everything. That’s how so many of us are, we take everything for granted and we don’t recognize miracles for what they are.
By the way, this thread should be renamed "Bible Study," since that’s basically what it is.
April 15, 2006 at 2:09 pm #46141quote :
perhaps, but we are dicussing life really, and I think a good
discussion is in under way, both sides of the coin U know?
I am tired of the bible thumpers, you think this forum does it?
Hell no this forum is civilized and polite, as mature discussions
And..points always get brought up that the bible is not sientific, but as we have brought out that it is, just as the Greek thinkers were in their day, so too was moses and other writers, as I have brought out, fr the "times" that they lived they had extraordinary thinking, and an understanding of science.
is creation true? then its important to discuss it.
isevolution true? then discuss that too.
Or is it a combination of the two?
The latter is what I am prone to believe.
RE: your referal to the skin disease, just to clarify.
R U refering to the apocolyp prophecy?
April 15, 2006 at 6:47 pm #46168quote Linn:
Yeah, that’s what I was talking about, the mark of the beast described in Revelations.
I don’t think we’re Bible thumping, but we do keep bringing it up. I wonder how this fits into the ban on religious discussion. I guess the mods are going to allow this one, as long as we keep our religious chit chat inside this particular thread.
April 15, 2006 at 6:53 pm #46169
Well I am not talking about religion per say,
but that as a believer in ID, I want to make a
case that the bible does have validity, as a credable
source, and scientific points.
April 15, 2006 at 11:10 pm #46193quote alextemplet:
That is not example I used. Here is mine:quote damienjames:
Yes, I would be ultimately responsible for his crimes already knowing outcome.
And concept of free will is no longer relevant once future outlook has been forseen. If God is omniscient, he knows exactly what will happen before action is completed, therefore, path has already been set, negating free will.
This was my argument from beginning. If path is already set having already been observed before hand, then those who are blessed with salvation or doomed to damnation are known to God before having ever been born.
Of course, this is only case with truly omniscient God.
April 15, 2006 at 11:54 pm #46197quote :
trying to be a wise guy ha? 😮
April 16, 2006 at 12:13 am #46199
Damien, the two examples are the same. In both it is known that a crime will be committed beforehand, and in both cases it is the fault of the person committing that crime and no one else. Our paths are not set in stone but completely up to us to decide. God knowing what we will choose beforehand does not negate our free will anymore than me knowing which road you will take to drive to a city negates your free will. Even though I may know beforehand which path you will take, it is still you that takes that path and not I.
Linn, if you weren’t talking about Revelations, what mark were you talking about? The mark of Cain?
April 16, 2006 at 12:58 am #46214
Alex, the two examples are not the same or I would have not re-issued my example. In my example, I express certainty of a situation by making the Father omniscient. In your example, one person merely tells the other what he will do, but there is no actual knowledge of the future implied, only a statement from the would be killer. See the difference?
Also, just knowing outcome of a situation with certainty (i.e. the omniscience of God) is influence on the situation. See relativity. This is why with an omniscient God there is no true free will. Free will would imply that the outcome of my choice is not known before hand.
And if God knows what I will do before I do it, then he knows whether my path will lead to salvation or not. Therefore, he has the option before hand to make sure I will not even be born.
If God knows that a group of children will end up with terminal illnesses and die in a children’s hospital through no fault of their own, then he has option to make sure their situation will never arise.
If God knows the outcome of the Rwandan genocide, then he has option of making sure it never takes place.
Because to the omniscient God the specific outcomes of these situations have been determined, AND he has the power to make sure they do not take place, you can say that he is responsible.
Your argument seems to rest on human beings being able to choose their destiny. My argument is that in the presence of an omniscient God, there is no actual choice involved, and no true free will. If there was, then future is unable to be forseen in advance.
You see, it is important to understand that just the mere observation of an event, even if that event is in future, sets the path for that particular event.
If this to be true:quote alextemplate:
then there cannot have been observation of future events, hence, no omniscient God.
April 16, 2006 at 1:35 am #46218
Hi Damien 🙂
perhaps you missed my post
God can Choose to look or not.
Just as you can choose what you want to
watch on tv or not watch it,
or turn it off etc
first you turn on the tv, then choose what to watch
you have the ability,but can choose to use it.
God makes selective and discretioary use of his ability,
If he didnt then as Alex pointed out we would not have
Example: Genesis 18:20,21
If you had this ability wouldnt you do the same?
There are some things I have the capability to
know but chhose not to.
if you could see your future right now,
and when you will die and how,
would you want to know?
I sure would not.
Case in point is my superstitious mother in law who went to
a fortune teller who told her a family member was going
to die in a red car,
guess whos car she REFUSES to get in to?
time travel involves the use of speed, so he
engage that process if he wants.
Also God can discern things too as to the
outcome of something just as a loving father
knows by how his kid acts the outcome of such actions.
And we also have the tech to see our unborn
baby in the womb
and determine his sex, When the doctor asks :
"do you want to know?"
many choose to wait to see and be surprised,
Maybe God is like that, and when we do well he feels
happiness because he did not know ahead. And when
humans "fill the world with violence", he is deeply grieved.
April 16, 2006 at 1:51 am #46219
If God has chosen not to look, then he is not All Knowing, therefore not omniscient.
April 16, 2006 at 2:02 am #46220quote damien james:
🙄 me gives up 😆
you dont get it so be it 🙂
April 16, 2006 at 3:17 am #46224
I agree with Linn. God does know what will happen, but if He did choose to alter our choices – as damien seems to think He might – then He would destroy free will. Just because He knows what we’re going to do doesn’t mean that we aren’t the ones responsible for doing it. The very fact that God allows both good and bad to coexist should prove that there is free will. If there wasn’t, evil would not exist.
But yeah, I think this is going to be another one of those "I’m right!"/"No I’m right!" x 1000 repititions debate so I guess I’ll just leave it at that. If you choose to disagree that’s up to you, not me, because you have that free will! 😆
Sorry, that last one was kind of corny, I know, forgive me. 😛
April 16, 2006 at 3:59 am #46226
NO Alex, your wrong!!!
It’s bla bla bla bla remember? 😆 😆
Ill never forget that cause when you said that I was lMAO!
you should come on here a little bzed more often. 😆
reminds me, I haven’t had a beer in …???
a while, time I did.
OOPs mitril mod will scold us if we chit chat off topic,
April 16, 2006 at 7:30 am #46244
Well I haven’t had a beer since last summer, but it’s late and I’m hungry and I’m tired so I do feel kind of, well, not quite buzzed but something close. So blah blah blah blah blah, that’s all I have to say. Very informative, wasn’t it?
April 16, 2006 at 4:46 pm #46285quote alextemplet:
The point I’ve been trying to make is that if God knows what we will do, then there is no free will. All it takes is one observation of an event, even if it is God’s, to set the path of that event. If the path of the event has already been chosen, then there can be no deviation, hence no free will. And God allowing good and evil to co-exist still does not influence the path of events, since the events have already been observed before they happened, once again, no free will.
Everything I’ve stated has been backed by sound, unbiased logic. I have made no opinions based on assumptions, the only point being taking under consideration that God is "omniscient".
I still haven’t seen anything yet as being legitimately contrary to what I have stated. I have not posted my original question for the sake of arguing, only to express my view of the omniscient God in Christian religion. My original view was that an omniscient God would be ultimately responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world. With omniscience comes knowledge of past, present and future. Knowledge of any event in any time frame would set the course of that event regardless. This is elementary physics. Since path has already been set, it is not subject to change, hence no true "free will".
April 16, 2006 at 5:04 pm #46290quote :
Of which God created bTW
I dont understand what part odf choose you dont get?
Ok you have complete knowledge of something:
That already exsists> God has this > Omniscient: also
is described as awareness, understanding, percieving of things
since the future does not really exsist yet in this realm
God has complete knowledge, and yet complete knowledge
to change the realm when/if he so chooses to percieve
the future in some cases.
He has the knowledge to do this whenever he so desires.
If you are all knowing in one catagory,
have you actually applied it?
Seeing the future means the application of such knowledge.
Which he has
April 16, 2006 at 8:38 pm #46332quote Linn:
I know I’m gonna get smacked for being a smartass but:
Linn (and others) you seem to have a strong grasp on "who" and "what" God is, and His capabilities, etc. I think this is a slippery slope that many people get on, attempting to define God, even if in defense of Him.
Frankly, you’re making things up.
Cults have been formed from smaller assumptions than the ones you’re making in this thread. If an all-powerful God does exist, I doubt It could be adequately defined in a single book, much less a million books.
This is not to discredit the current discussion. I think that it’s worth discussing, without so many assumptions. It may shed some meaningful light on the values that can be taken from differing interpretations of religious writings.
As for "quantum physics" I think you’re using that as a catch-all phrase for things people don’t understand yet. Time travel and partical re-assembly etc have not been shown to even be remotely possible. Theoretical models for them are based on assumptions and abstractions of other theoretical models. This isn’t to say that they aren’t possible, just that at this point they’re not attainable with our current understanding of science. There IS a large chance, however, that they’re simply impossible on the scale you’re thinking of.
The point is that it’s possible that you’re right, but there’s not a very reliable way of testing what you’re saying. Perhaps it would be better to remain within the realm of what we DO know, or at least what we can experiment with.
PS: In Damien’s defence, a being that knows everything past, present, and future, is a slave to it’s own knowledge, as it already knows what it will do at any given juncture. But that is just paradoxical human understanding. Just another reason why discussions of such matters are usually unproductive.
April 16, 2006 at 9:33 pm #46339
JUST KIDDEN 🙂
We must be a cult eh?
what is your belief in life origen?
why should we have to defend our beliefs lets see
what you can come up with to explian your religion
of non-god belief. 🙂
Where to start?
What quest to ask of you, to explain to me?
(I am not being angry, or upset, my face has a smile
and I was laughing at your reply)
April 17, 2006 at 1:44 am #46356
Have you ever heard how ppl say that once you stop looking, you’ll find it?
Or maybe the answer isn’t one for us to find?
personally I think it’s kinda stupid to keep harping on and on about evolution, other nations are already progressing beyond this basic question and getting great progress in science while americans are wondering why we have a "science gap"
April 17, 2006 at 2:25 am #46364quote mithrilhack:
Well I could say something but it wouldnt be nice.
you have your own oppinion
and can I have a link about other nations vs ?? what R U saying?
April 17, 2006 at 2:59 am #46369
Never mind the last two posts folks. 8)
we all hve our oppinions
hope you all had a nice day, and good one tomorrow 🙂
April 17, 2006 at 3:04 am #46370
In Astus’s defense, he is a very religious person and I think what he said makes sense and carries a degree of merit. Damien, I believe that everything I’ve said is just as logical and backed by sound reason as you believe about everything you said. In fact I have a very hard time understanding the logic that you’re trying to explain. But as I said before, any continuation of this discussion will just be repitition, so I’ll leave it at that.
April 17, 2006 at 3:13 am #46374
well )scratching head) personaly I cant figure out this
"I’m religious" yet seem to want to disproove God 😕
why not just kick this one?
I dont want it to lead to sqabbling 🙄
you are lucky, I think I am the only female..
or woud be a "cat" fight
you guys are so civilized 😛
one thing for sure your brains are sure "brainy"
April 17, 2006 at 7:35 pm #46478SkytrollParticipant
There have been changes in evolutionary thinking since Darwin.
Free will means we choose.
Genetics followed Darwinism.
Purebreds vs adaptation.
That evolutionary box has some of you cornered here.
Genetics can change and evolve anything,
Do you all know Gould?
April 17, 2006 at 7:42 pm #46481
thanx for joining the convers.
yes I have mentioned Gould and mithril has too.
somewhare in one of these threads I quoted . 🙄
April 18, 2006 at 5:18 am #46594
A cat fight? Chunk would smack all of you to pieces.
April 18, 2006 at 5:31 am #46596
😯 😳 forgot bout chunks!
April 19, 2006 at 7:58 am #46737quote Linn:
Linn thank you for being so good natured. I was somewhat afraid that I would offend you. No I don’t believe you or anyone else here is a cult. The fact of the matter is that many different doctrines of established religions rely on these assumptions I’m referring to. Anyhow, as I’ve said before, I’m not entirely sure what I believe but I definitely haven’t gotten to the point of non-god belief :).
Like I’ve saide before though, as far as science is concerned, I try not to allow "beliefs" to get in the way of the scientific method. But that’s a whole other debate we’d be better off not getting into again :D.f
PS: I’m by no means calling you to defend your beliefs. I’m merely reminding you that you are stating those BELIEFS, which are only vaguely (or not at all) supported by scripture as FACT. Even in a religious forum that kind of discussion would be discouraged. A simple qualifier "I believe" is all that is needed to rectify the situation.
April 19, 2006 at 8:15 am #46740
Hey Alex help me I did not come to the forum for a week or so I donot understand anything nor am I patient to read all those messages 😥 😥 But I spent my time reading a book on different animals[really cool book] and also wrote two hypothesis.
April 19, 2006 at 11:07 am #46744
I have been wondering where you were?
missed you 🙂
thats ok, forget about us 🙁
April 26, 2006 at 11:16 pm #47431
Lynn, sometime back you stated that
"Once a cookie is baked, it is baked" I believe
there are such things as half-baked cookies.
You have asked why there is such a sudden
existing element to subvert the Bible. Well I
guess that would be because so many of us
just suddenly realized our children’s science
teachers were starting to introduce the concept
of Intelligence Design into the classrooms.
I have every respect for your religious beliefs
but when you speak of science as you see it
in the Bible, it is obvious that you do not even
understand the basic concept of scientific principles.
Science is based on a set of rules that have to do
with evaluating ever-changing information according
to tangible evidence. All known scientific knowledge
is open for new discoveries.
I would like to know how old that you believe the
earth is. I would like to know if you think that the
Grand Canyon was created exactly as we see it
today, and that you think the Colorado River had
nothing to do with it’s formation.
Can you give us your definition of science.
April 27, 2006 at 1:56 pm #47478quote margaret:
well, u r not asking me, but i’ll answer that anyway
Now, science and religious belief are not necessarily incompatible with one another. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself, who thought up the theory of evolution, was a religious man for much of his life and the worry about how his theory would affect religion made him very sick. But the overwhelming majority of working biological scientists will tell you that creation theory and evolutionary theory are absolutely opposed to one another and share no common ground at all. So you have to ask yourself why the people in each group think the way that they do, and decide whose explanation you prefer.
Religious belief is a very different process from scientific belief. If you ask a creationist why they believe what they do, they will say that it comes from a very deep feeling inside of themselves. They will say that the evidence for their belief is very strong and is all around them, and is so obvious to them in everything they do. But if you ask a scientist why they believe in evolution, they will give you a different answer. They will also say that the evidence is all around them and is obvious, but they will offer you the results of experiments which have led them to that belief.
For instance, you ask how old is the earth. I believe that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, I’ll tell you that we have a good understanding of how radioactive elements decay, we know that they decay at certain rates and we can measure their ratios in rocks and use that process as a clock to date the age of the rock. So scientists have beliefs too, but it’s a different belief, based on data from experiments. And I would like to think that if someone came up with good evidence that radioactive dating was wrong, then I would change my belief about the age of rocks. This is why most scientists believe in evolution.
I dont know about the Grand Canyon
April 27, 2006 at 4:32 pm #47502
I wasn’t speaking out against religion. I believe that both science and religion have their place. I am, however, speaking out against the deliberate attempt which has become so invasive in the last few years to blur the line between science and religion in the classrooms across this country. An attempt is being made to teach just enough extremist fundamentalist ideas in the classrooms to cause students to be confused about the true underlying discipline of science. Lynn’s posts suggested to me that she was making an extreme effort to align every word of the Bible right along side science. I guess I am a bit sensitive about this subject because I live in the heart of the Bible-belt that produced our esteemed Attorney General John Ashcroft. Sorry to offend anyone.
April 27, 2006 at 6:30 pm #47516
There’s nothing wrong with applying scientific principles to something that you’d like to verify. If you think that the Bible is an accurate record of what happened, then by all means test away at it. What I have a problem with is when the tests are done improperly, or when the tester has a strong bias that affects the results. This creates a lot of disinformation and confusion.
If the Bible were an accurate record (which I personally don’t believe, although that doesn’t mean that I’m right), then it will align very well to whatever scientific standards and principles you’d care to compare it with. However, simply assuming that it is right and then trying to force scientific evidence to fit that assumption is something that bothers me too.
April 27, 2006 at 6:40 pm #47517quote margaret:
sorry Margaret, I think you have it backwards 😉
religion is not allowed and creationism is not allowed, nor is evolution
presented as a theory.
those are the facts.quote :
and what scientific dicipline shall we go by?
I think this topic has been covered enough. 🙂
(no offense Margaret)
PS: we are king of polar extremes:
I am in the middle of the "science belt" 😛
April 27, 2006 at 6:48 pm #47519
Now let me get this straight, Lynn, you think think your preacher is teaching science in your church. Or, you have been home schooled and you think religion is a legitamate part of a science. How do I have anything backward.
And, could you please give me your defination of science. And how old do you belive the world is?
April 27, 2006 at 6:52 pm #47520
Lynn, if you are in the middle of the science belt then perhaps you need to tighten your belt up a notch or two. Your version of science is too loose.
April 27, 2006 at 7:00 pm #47521
Now, now, Margaret ,
you are entitled to your own opinion, read through these threads, those things have been discussed, unless we just PM each other,
to dicuss it 🙂
Please dont insult me 🙁
April 27, 2006 at 7:18 pm #47522
Lynn, you are obviously very bright and you use your computer quite well. Please google the words ‘scientific method’. Hopefully you can learn what the word ‘theory’ means as applied to scientific knowledge. All real science is accepted only when it meets these simple requirements.
April 28, 2006 at 12:38 am #47540
As the forum’s resident Catholic, and as a person who has argued very strongle in defense of evolution, I have just this to say, "What are we arguing about in the first place?"
I think that in all this religious debate, we’ve lost sight of our true purpose. I say that because I don’t even remember what that true purpose is. All I know is that this is our "Biblical Theology Debate" thread.
That is all I have to say.
April 28, 2006 at 12:56 am #47542
Well Margaret apparently is calling in to question if I know about scientific method and for me to google it.
I could answer you w/o googling 😯
If you think I am your average bible tooter who says the earth is
6000years you are wrong.
As for the grand canyon it is obviously very old, as it was slooooowly carved out by glaciers. But the age has just recently been changed (yet again) by geologists) if you dont believe me googlt it! I think they just shaved like 40 million years off the previously estimated age.
Radio active dating is not an exact science either.
So I will say the earth is in the ball park of 100’s of thousands/millions of years old, perhaps 5 billion as has been estimated.
we know this from the estimation of the ratio of radioactive half life.
the earth age is checked by the ratios of uranium >lead which it becomes when radioactivity is lost. 🙂
BTW I am >Lynne (with an e)
April 28, 2006 at 1:09 am #47543quote alextemplet:
Well I am not arguing R U Margaret?
In fact I agree that some religious people take things a bit too literal.
And Alex the things you say are too cute 🙂
you make me smile 🙂 🙂
April 28, 2006 at 5:57 am #47550
uh oh, what were we saying about catfights?
Any how, Margaret and Linn, one thing you both seem to agree on (which I of course disagree on because that’s just how I am) is that there has been this recent emergence or rash of conflict between religion and science. It’s not recent though, nor is it any more heated now than it was when the TOE was first proposed. There has probably always been an anti-religious effort, under one guise or another. With the advancement of science, atheistic groups captialized on this "proof" against God, but their conclusions about a "lack of God" are just as unscientific as the groups they oppose (sometimes more unscientific).
Were i to use radio-isotopes or the geologic fossil record as proof that God does not exist, I would be just as foolish as those that use things such as irreducible complexity as proof that He does exist.
Really it’s rather pointless to argue, as it’s a matter of belief. If I were to believe that a god doesn’t exist (which I don’t) there wouldn’t be much or anything anyone could tell me or show me to make me change my mind. Beliefs are funny things.
I think that if someone like alex can BELIEVE in God and practice the science of evolution, that shows that they’re not mutually exclusive. I also think that it’s important that schools teach the SCIENCE of evolution, not the belief in evolution nor the belief in ID.
April 28, 2006 at 9:13 pm #47584
Good post there thanx 🙂
Ya, I don’t want a cat fight.
I was not going to post here much any more, but I felt a bit pickd on,
as margaret seemed to be calling in to question that I dont know about science due to my belief in God and ID. At least that was my take on it.
I have had my share of biology classes and many more to come, and have read about evolution too. I am still learning, and believe it or not I have learned quite a bit from all you guys Thanx 😉
But I have not changed my mind.
I have friends who are doctors and physicists and astronomic engineers, who are smarter than me , and happen to be even more religious than I am, and do not believe in evolution either.
It’s a choice. And you cant proove there is NOT a God.
I think some day we will ALL have an understanding of the origen of life (At least I hope so) einstein kept his mind open about it.
it makes no more sense to me to say that aminio acids and atoms etcc just came out of no where one day as it does to say God came Created them. And if God created every thing then he is the most scientific one of all 🙂 And I love him 🙂
So enough said by me on this subject.
April 30, 2006 at 1:36 am #47623quote Linn:
Thanks. I’m just downright adorable, aren’t I? 😛
May 6, 2006 at 7:12 pm #47999waterboyParticipant
Actually I view life from another perspective. It may either be something really cool or somethng down right absurd.
Firstly, to everyone already here, if possible provide links to free resources (like articles etc) on the web. It might help me (and others like me) to get a grasp about this subject, or so I assume . Anyway, I don’t want to talk anymore about how to learn biology.
Secondly, I may be rather vague at how I state things here. I believe in something, I feel, which is really strange. I may be stubborn in my views at the moment, but my main point was in trying to somehow find a rational explanation to life; which was why I stumbled over the idea of survival. I don’t really mind if anyone says it is ridiculous; just make me believe I am wrong, ok. So let us have no ego problems on this note.
Like mithrilhack suggested even I believe I am more into behaviour than biology. However, I would not want to comment about it; I am still unsure about what actually I’m interested in. So if you find this annoying – I apologize.
Coming back to the main point. I’ve tried to answer questions related to certain emotions like fear, love, etc. How does behaviour start? How does an emotion start? How did a species become intelligent about their own feelings?
Okay, consider this example. Take the case of stray dogs. I have not really done this experiment. I’m only predicting outcomes here. If you raise your hand to mimic the gesture of throwing a stone, notice what happens – the dogs takes caution. It runs. Now let me raise your curiosity further: suppose this dog for some reason has not had exposure to humans or other dogs at all since birth. It is some how trying to live, and it is doing rather well at that. Now, out of the blue, let some human being mimic the gesture of throwing the stone at him. What will happen now?
I predict the dog will take to its heels.
Now why don’t disprove me and explain this in the context of evolution. It would really help.
One other fact of life. This time consider new born babies. As soon as infants are out of their mother’s womb, they are cute silent creatures to look at, until they fall hungry. The mother then gives them their breast.Now IT IS A PERFECTLY NORMAL THING. But strangely they know how to suckle as well. Isn’t that food for thought? How do they know?
What is the issue with the idea of survival here? Say that the infant did not have the software to suckle. What then? Would it live?
May 9, 2006 at 1:21 am #48113
there are a lot of built in mechanisms in all animals including humans.
First of all, with your dog experiment, I’d say you’re probably right. The dog unfamiliar with humans would still flinch, or at least become much more alert (probably attack, lol) if you raised your arm. I can think of a couple of things to explain that. Chances are they’re both probably right. a) Almost all animals use height or altitude as intimidation displays. If you look at any animals in a confrontation (chickens are a good example, so are humans ironically) they’re constantly trying to make themselves taller than the other. Altitude probably provides somewhat of an advantage in a fight, but more importantly it’s more intimidating. b) dog evolution is tied to humans, and thus some responses to human behavior may have become ingrained in dog DNA (MAYBE). That one might be a bit of a stretch, but it has been shown that dogs are incredibly sensitive to human non-verbal communication. They can tell what mood you’re in, if you’re sick, even what you’re going to do next (ie stand up, sit down, walk, run, throw a ball).
May 9, 2006 at 2:27 am #48118
Very intersting, Astus, but in the Marine Corps we were taught that altitude is a disadvantage, not an asset, in a fight. The best way to win is to get under your opponent’s center of gravity and use his own weight against him.
Of course, to most, big and tall is still scary and intimidating, so your point is definitely correct, but I just felt like chiming in. 😉
May 17, 2006 at 2:20 pm #48549
May 20, 2006 at 11:42 pm #48702quote mithrilhack:
I totaly agree with that article
May 21, 2006 at 4:03 pm #48722quote Linn:
I agree with it, too, but that’s not surprising at all, is it?
May 31, 2006 at 2:52 pm #49253
The Darwins Evolutionary hypothesis completly relies on the excavations from the field of palentology to be proved as a theory. Darwin’s conclusions with his hypothesis was that it will be proved later when the missing links are discovered.
Since the publishing of Darwins work " On the origin of species by means of natural selection" in the year 1839, no link has been found that can be considered as a transition between any two particular phylum or class. Though the palentologists claim the discovery of transitions, it seems insufficient and incredible that a single link or two can connect two particular phylum or class.
The complexity of the DNA structure or the intricacy of structure of life was purely unknown at the time of Darwin’s discoveries. If known Darwin would not have attempted such a risk.
The studies in biology, palentology or allied sciences seems to concentrate only on the morphological similarities between two organism to predict their evolutionary relationship. In all the cases the multifarious information involved with the cytological and genetic factors are seen to be ignored.
The cytological and genetic factors are of great importance and plays the most important role in keeping the identity of the organism than that of the morphological characteristics. It is barely credible that huge genetic changes can take place in the evolutionary process by mere blind process. More the complexity of structure, more is the chance of error. Due to the high level of intricacy the DNA and genetic materials of all the organisms are more prone to disorder or formation of meaningless code under a blind process of mutation or natural selection.
The structure of life looks so ordered, designed, structured and planned. Anything that is so complex, so structured, so ordered and organised can never form, as a result of mere blind process having a higher chance to result in chaos.
June 1, 2006 at 2:10 am #49277
I am with you on the above post. 🙂
Did any one see the Nova Science broadcast about the recent discovery that the latest so-called missing link was a hoax. I knew it was going to be on but then I missed it. 🙁
June 1, 2006 at 2:16 am #49278
For some reason I feel like all of this has been said plenty of times before:quote :
Paleontology certainly plays a role, but most evolutionary research focuses mainly on genetics.quote :
Completely false. Ambulocetus comes to mind, as do others.quote :
Read above; most evolutionary research focuses on genetics.quote :
Most mutation is harmful, but not all. Experiments have shown that evolution is capable of occuring at a rate several thousand times faster than the fastest transitions shown in fossils. In light of this fact, claiming that evolution is impossible is like watching a car race by at 100mph and then claiming it’s impossible to build a car capable of traveling at 50mph.
June 5, 2006 at 9:22 am #49521
Archaeopteryx can also be added to your list. Oh wait, didn’t we talk about that on page 12? or maybe 18? no… 20?? 14?? 3??
Maybe we should publish this thread as a book :).
And I ditto Alex on the point that modern evolutionary theory is based very largely on genetics.
Also, Darwin’s initial theory was not based on palentology but mere systematic biology (ie observation of the finches).
You say that life (genetics) has degraded over time, rather than being "refined" into more "complex" systems. Then you go on to say that life is so incredibly complex and perfectly balanced that it couldn’t have been arranged by "blind force".
I’m not going to go through another explanation of the mechanism of adaptation, but suffice it to say that analogies such as the "blind watchmaker" or "throwing puzzles in the air" are nothing but straw-man arguments. Read the past 21 pages to find out why. You’re just re-voicing irreducible complexity and the supposed 2nd law issue, which have been addressed already.
You’re entitled to your opinion, as we all are, but if you’re going to argue, or start stating things as fact, then you might want to read over the thread before posting, and submit documentation with factual statements.
June 5, 2006 at 12:29 pm #49537
Lets not start those up again
Its also been mentioned many times about how those
"so-called" missing links are speculative and not proven.
June 5, 2006 at 4:45 pm #49551
Do you think we’ll ever finish arguing in here?
June 5, 2006 at 11:16 pm #49583
When we get too tired to post in here anymore, others will pick the "arguments" up.
June 6, 2006 at 3:09 am #49597
I would rather imagine that we are just all trying to figure it out: what is the truth. That is what science is: knowledge, learning, figuring it all out.
Debate is good it keeps scientists looking and figuring and prooving or disprooving.
June 6, 2006 at 12:42 pm #49610quote :
I don’t think so not until the forum has all David or all Linn or all Alex or all Astus.I have to admit But I accept with Linn’s statement for 100%.
June 9, 2006 at 7:13 pm #49792
Certainly mutations do produce some novel genetic changes but a mutation has never been known to add information to an already complex genetic system. As the field of genetics has advanced to the present position, we today know that all the genetic information in the organism’s body is coded with complex genetic combinations. All the bodily manifestations, structure, function and behavior are the result of the Genetic codes.
Any minute change that can take place in the body structure of an organism can be only as a result of numerous genetic recombinations in the information system. For the acquisition of a particular characteristic or the formation of an organ (adaptation) or to enable the existing organ to perform new function (exaptation); a drastic change needs to occur in the genes or the genetic material. Additional information is needed to be added to the existing genetic code for the above sort of acquisition of characteristic. The question arises on which was formed first? The information or the characteristics. The study in the genetics itself reveals that each characteristic is the result of genetic information. This means for an evolution to occur the information must be formed first. The question again arises on how, specific genetic information were formed for the development of specialized organs like heart, lungs, liver, kidneys and the master controller brain.
Any student of natural science can understand, and knows very well that a variation in the order of the genetic material may result in a change in the meaning of information and
the coded information is specific to each particular organism. A minor change in the chain of codes can never lead to the evolution of a species but rather a focused change must take place in the whole information system for a desired modification to take place in the organism’s body structure. As discussed the probability of forming an ordered structure as result of recombination without intelligence is nearly equal to zero, especially when the change is focused towards a desired result.
The same phenomenon is found in all the organisms but with different order. Imagine the genetic change that has to take place in an organism to modify its external or internal structure. Or how much information is required to form a code to develop the forelimbs into feathers, the fins into fore limbs, irrational – instinctive organism to a rational – creative one. What can be the source of information? Is the impulse from the nature enough to create meaningful directed information?
A minimum reasoning is enough to guess the intelligence of the car maker who has designed the car capable of racing at a speed of 100 or 200 miles per hour. Especially when there is no chance of such an efficient motor vehicle be created in a factory by chance or without the application of expert engineering principles.
Darwinism never supports changes that take place thousand of times faster to skip links but the accumulation of variations. The missing links doesn’t mean that the evolution has taken place thousands of time faster. If has taken place faster it cannot be explained in evolution but punctuated equilibrium. Neither the former nor the latter has enough support from genetics, considering the information criteria.
The cranial endocast studies conducted in Archaeopteryx fossil revealed that it was a completely developed Ave, fully capable of flight and well developed avian model circulatory and nervous system.
Coelacanth that was considered to be a link between the Pisces and Amphibians was explained as extinct by evolutionists till 1938 when the fisherman caught it species (Latimeria chalumnae) from the African marine waters. The studies on the live specimen had made all contradictions with the pre-conceptions and revealed having no relationship with the amphibians and were found to be a complete Pisces.
The Appendix that was considered to be vestigial is found to have lymphatic tissue and helps control the bacteria entering the intestine. Suppose the many so called vestigial examples are confirmed, they can never be a support to evolution but devolution.
The above cited are only few, among the many contradictions to the paleontological and physiological studies for the confirmation of evolution. What evolutionary explanation can we give to the multifarious and unique specimens of life, and the formation of intricate meaningful information coded in them. Science obviously involves observation and experiment but I think ultimately a reasoned analysis without bias must be necessary to review what truth is.
June 9, 2006 at 11:58 pm #49803
Quote bpv:quote :
That is the problem.
Why is it so hard for some to keep an open mind that DNA may have been designed by a supreme intelligence? as you put it :quote :
June 10, 2006 at 8:37 am #49821
Forgive me for not reading your entire post bpv. I’d like to respond to your first statement.
First of all, DNA CAN be added to a genome, via viral agents or some types of mutations.
Furthermore, a large portion of our genome is "junk dna" serving no apparent purpose. How do you explain that?
June 10, 2006 at 10:27 am #49827
[Linn][Why is it so hard for some to keep an open mind that DNA may have been designed by a supreme intelligence? as you put ]
Linn – Do you mean theistic evolution? Is it possible?
AstusAleator – Is that Junk DNA or the function is unknown?
June 11, 2006 at 11:39 am #49861quote :
Oh! my goodness how can you ask such a question to linn I guess few months before she was a one lady army fighting against evolution.She is a theist but doesn’t accept evolution for sure.
June 11, 2006 at 1:35 pm #49872quote David George:
😆 😆 too cute!! Thanx for calling me an army lady 😆
David I do not accept the theory that life evolved by chance on its own w/o direction from God.
I believe in "speciation" and adaptation, and any consistently passed on traits w/I an isolated population through genetic inheritance. An that sterility becomes the limiting factor. Some creatures are meant to be what they are, ie feline, canine, etc according to specific codes.
Even though dogs can vary widely in their overall size and facial characteristics, color, personality etc thay are still canine they never evolved to an other. and its been a (loooong) time to see if they would start sprouting wings or saying "meow" or something. Does any one get what I am saying ever? there is limitation as to what can be "evolved"
Read my post about lizards and snakes, from june 11:
I try to keep an open mind, if ever I can see proof that someting is evolving in to an other creature not related or entirely new. and is able to produce viable offspring through many generations that evolve even further I would believe it. But I would still believe its God directed. So far its not happening.
Hey, The 8th day is yet to come who knows what will start evolving? 😆 😛
June 12, 2006 at 3:19 am #49895
I am a theist and I accept evolution.
June 12, 2006 at 7:24 am #49908quote bpv:
Most of it truly is "junk" or unused DNA. The mapping of the human genome has gone a long way towards proving this.
One good observable example of unused DNA is exons, though the junk DNA I’m talking about is primarily large gene sequences that don’t even get translated.
June 15, 2006 at 1:46 pm #50116quote AstusAleator:
Like inert material? 😆
But maybe we will find out different in the future.
Like now the find after all, the appendics actually does have a function. 💡
June 15, 2006 at 1:51 pm #50118
I don’t really think that junk DNA would still be there if it was completely useless. ANd I have read recently a paper that shows that genes that nuclear localisation is important for gene expression. SO junk DNA may not be coding for enzymes but it may have a structural purpose.
Junk DNA is probably a very poorly chosen name for this. On of the worst misnomer in biology.
June 15, 2006 at 7:53 pm #50135quote Canalon:
You are absolutely right.
As Linn stated I too think some new function will be discovered later.
Discoveries are just started only. Miles to go.
June 16, 2006 at 1:44 am #50153quote bpv:
Its so exciting to think of what we will learn in the future. 🙂
June 17, 2006 at 4:31 am #50202
June 18, 2006 at 12:33 am #50228
Wow, that is old argument. Haven’t seen that one pulled out in a while.
June 18, 2006 at 2:33 am #50233
If only I had a nickel for every time I heard that argument! 😆
June 22, 2006 at 7:39 pm #50408
I think, the above repetition will definitely occur again and again because the truth will never remain hidden under the debris for long. At constant intervels I think it will come up similarly.
My intention was not to argue but only, try to share some truth that I realized. Or even you can take it as a confession of a late atheistic evolutionist. Sorry I think, if I go deep it may go off topic.
I think throughout the tread we have discussed much.
Please check the URL’s
June 22, 2006 at 9:38 pm #50411
I’ve seen all of those websites before, and forgive me for saying so but I find them to be of rather poor value as to the authenticity and accuracy of their information, AIG being one of the worst.
June 23, 2006 at 12:58 am #50416
All have been rebutted at talkorigins.org. Maybe it’s time you updated your sources?
June 23, 2006 at 2:51 am #50421quote mithrilhack:
But rebuttel does not mean that one is right. Its still each persons views and theories, one which happens to be more popular.
Rarely, have I any thing new with the rebutltes either. So your right guys/gals same old same old.
remember theory may be proven wrong either way eventualy. Or maybe there is some truth to each? 😉
PS the best opins are from the physicists and cosmologists. I think.
These people are REALLY deep thinking brainy people.
June 23, 2006 at 3:09 am #50425
You’re right, Linn, there is probably a little truth to both sides, but there are certain viewpoints that, I think, simply do not deserve to be taken seriously. The AIG website, as I mentioned before, is basically 99% mythology and does not in any way deserve to be treated as serious scientific material.
One thing discussion in this forum has taught me is how important it is to keep an open mind, but such a practice should be balanced against a desire to learn and appreciate truth, so viewpoints that are clearly untruthful do not need to be tolerated.
If I said that all known existence was just a television drama put on by a bunch of super-intelligent mice, and the "real world" includes such oddities as singing dolphins and pre-fabricated planets, it might very well be true, but who will actually believe it?
June 23, 2006 at 4:59 am #50437
I don’t think it’s a popularity contest, in many cases the creationism claims are either clearly false or have no scientific backing.
For example when I searched in the answersingenesis.org archives, I found this article
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio … namics.asp
Considering the rebuttal, perhaps creationists still don’t understand physics, let alone biology.
June 23, 2006 at 3:26 pm #50453
Or geology, either. AIG is one of those young-earth groups, and we all know what that means! They actually believe dinosaurs and man coexisted, and that it’s somehow possible to see galaxies millions of light years away that were only created a few thousand years ago. But I’m not going into that again.
June 24, 2006 at 1:59 am #50469quote :
In all Fairness lets not forget that many creationists ARE pysicists and biologists. 😉
June 24, 2006 at 3:32 am #50473
Methinks I doth see the origins of yet another bout of debateth.
June 24, 2006 at 11:01 pm #50498quote alextemplet:
I feareth you speaketh the truth Sir. 😉
June 25, 2006 at 6:18 pm #50523
Verily, I doth strive at all times to speaketh truthfully.
June 30, 2006 at 1:54 pm #50801karlParticipant
This goes out to Arun, the whole point of survival is survival! This is also not diying, so you answered your own question
July 1, 2006 at 3:01 pm #50860
In evolutionary terms, I think survival has more to do with successfully reproducing, and thus passing on genes to the next generation, than it does with actually surviving. Hence the many species that die as a part of reproducing.
July 20, 2006 at 4:25 am #51775shyanParticipant
darwins survival of the fittest has been proven wrong-all induviduals have an equal chance of passing on there genes. what it all boils down to is luck, really.
July 20, 2006 at 4:50 am #51776quote shyan:
That is not correct and there are many reasons why. Too many to list here.
July 20, 2006 at 7:35 am #51780GregVParticipant
If things evolved in this big freak accident, of course which could never happen again as it did,
How did, over several thousand to a few million years, did the lungs evolve accidently,
along with the brain wiring that happened to evolve along with the digestive tract, so we could digest the food,
all along while the jawbone was evolving at the same time accidently,
so we could chew our food, and my balleen strainer teeth disapeared at the same time,
and the brain rewired and told me not to use my gills anymore, while the ability to breathe air, without gills, accidentally evolved at the same time,
and of course the immune system evolved accidently all at the same time,
Waite a minute, this is really getting confusing…
How did they all accidently evolve at the same time so I could survive, while my heart slowly evolved in order to make the first beat, while my brain accidently rewired itself for this to happen,
OH, my brain had to wire itself to remember this, and the kidneys and liver accidently evolved at the same time over millions of years, (It was really hard to survive while all of this was transpiring) especially while the liver had to learn how to do over 500 things all at once,
Oh, and my spinal chord with the nerves evolved accidently at the same time as all of the rest was accidently evolving…
And then the arteries and veins exploded into existence upon the first heartbeat, and accidently at the same time, the lymph system decided to accidently evolve over millions of years,
I guess the lymph system accidently evolved with the immune system, while the bones accedently tried to find a way over millions of years to produce the various types of blood cells and also components of the immyne system, (accidently with the spleen and other components)
Oh wait, my brain had to evolve and rewire to produce the urge to eat food,
This is really confusing me, while my brain had to evolve to try to understand this, and to know, Uh Oh!!!
I sure would have probably died by now….
Boy oh boy… talk about a freak of nature???
What are the mathematical odds of all of this being able to accidently take place accidently all at the same time, 😕 🙁 😉 😯 😯
WHAT A MIRACLE!!!
July 20, 2006 at 1:45 pm #51806quote GregV:
That would be indeed a miracle IF it accidentaly happened at the same time, but, and that is the point of the theory of evolution, iT DID NOT happen at the same time.
July 21, 2006 at 3:31 pm #51913GregVParticipant
With all due respect,
They all happened right after each other accidently,
This calls me to such greater awareness, that accidents truly have a plan in mind and all of their own, and that accidents truly know what they’re doing.
I mean no harm, just pokin at the "Theory"
Isn’t the greater miracle found of the 2 "Theories",… to be that these things spontaneously accidently happened one after the other, which mathematically becomes impossible in the odds equation,
rather than the idea that somebody knew what they were doing in the first place?
July 21, 2006 at 4:29 pm #51918
I’ll save us the typing
Greg, being sincere in your beliefs doesn’t make you right. I think you’ve been reading from the wrong sources, so my suggestion is that you take a look at the talkorigins site and look over some evolutionist and creationist claims and decide for yourself.
July 23, 2006 at 6:35 am #52007loveangelParticipant
can u give me the details about the theory of charles darwin about the giraffe????
July 23, 2006 at 1:32 pm #52025quote loveangel:
I thought it was Lamarck who had the theory about the giraffe?
July 23, 2006 at 2:24 pm #52037
i think darwin’s theory could apply to any organism, though i dont think he specifically mention giraffe
July 23, 2006 at 2:31 pm #52038quote kiekyon:
But Lamarck did mention an example with a giraffe, didn’t he?
July 23, 2006 at 3:04 pm #52039
July 23, 2006 at 9:06 pm #52051
I knew it! 😛
August 14, 2006 at 11:44 am #53339loveangelParticipant
yah, lamarack also gave a theory about the giraffe, but about his theory, it describes that the reason why the girrafes do have long neck, its bec they stretched their neck until it got long then there was a heritage form got from them and thats what is according to his theory while charles darwin’s theory about the giraffe is that, there were 2 class of giraffes before the long and short necks, because i think in my understanding, the survival for living for the shorter necks of giraffe were very difficult and they died while the long necks of giraffes have survived using their long necks, they used it in reaching food in higher places. then the heritage was develop. thats all folks!
August 16, 2006 at 7:10 am #53491quote :
The reason that you have given is right but the extra long neck of giraffe cannot be told by such a reason, according to me is because the giraffe lived in a commnity with various heights and a constant mixture of genes produced more variation in extremes of size considering an antelope as the giraffe’s ancestor means long neck more trouble as also in an equatorial region.I am saying an equatorial region because the okapi survives in it and an okapi’s ancestor cannot be an antelope according to me giraffes are much more related to cows.
October 6, 2006 at 8:53 am #56072darwinistParticipantquote deostroll:
If u came across genesis and microbiology i would not rise this question..
all these behaviour are all already coded in genes of all species. all mamalians are coded in their genes how to suckle since mamals start appearing at the end of cambrian period ie end of jurassic period.so its more that 200 miliions years of programing , even if the baby wants to erace the software it cant do that bcz its all built in it.
your predictions are wrong!!!!!!! mightbe it will take millions and millions of years for a dog to forget that code built in it to ignore stone throwing man …. dogs are canine family , if u really want to test ur idea go to wild , go to cold siberia and try to through a stone at wolf there , then u would know what evolution did on living things…
its all natural selection
October 13, 2006 at 6:23 pm #56529
This thread is still going?
October 13, 2006 at 7:37 pm #56535
I blame you for that 😛
October 14, 2006 at 12:40 pm #56606
October 15, 2006 at 3:54 am #56641quote AstusAleator:
Hey U R still around? 🙂
I loved this thread. 🙁 Its still here but just kind of fizzed out.
cause I dont post stuff to p ny one off 😆
October 15, 2006 at 7:41 am #56662
Yes I’m still around (sorry to take the thread on a tangent)
I was working for the BLM out in the desert all summer, so I didn’t have access to the net. Now I’m back at school though, so I can post more.
Still, I probably won’t post as much as I used to, just because I’m so darn busy w/classes, job, and my club.
October 17, 2006 at 3:12 am #56786quote AstusAleator:
well welcome back.
January 31, 2007 at 2:07 pm #68421
I want to know about things like
I could easily ask it in other places out here. But I thought I ask it out here anyway so that they are "here"…
February 2, 2007 at 5:18 am #68510
Eh, places like wikipedia can help you understand terminology. Also, doing a search through the forum will reveal many discussions on each of these terms I’m sure.
Way to bring up a dead thread though 😀
February 2, 2007 at 5:23 am #68511
Way to feed it lol
February 4, 2007 at 9:38 am #68577
I thought I’d do a research on these terms, but there is no logical map or a syllabus at hand. I’d actually want to finally discuss about things life love and fear eventually. These reactions must be something naturally selected. Perhaps this is a point I’ve mentioned before. But now I see things with a new light.
There is a gene expansion program. Every gene has the desire to increase its trait in the gene pool. This could have resulted in polygamy. It could be that love arose out of the chaos this created. Of course the gene expansion program is logical. As long as one individual thinks that his or her trait is the one which dominates the society he or she has a better chance of survival. More offsoring that share common trait is something good according to that individual.
Now in a situation like this the offspring can attack its parent on account of sharing resources, etc. This is the chaos that might have resulted. To counter this the idea of love was born. I don’t mean that it was originated all of a sudden. Rather it was existent but not that prominent. It could have got naturally selected from then on and survived the later generations. The idea that this is naturally selected makes sense: there are various forms of love – maternal love, patriotism, etc. All of these forms could have evolved.
It is a strange theory. I don’t know if I’ve used the terms such as gene pool the way I should, however I have expressed an idea. What is your say?
February 4, 2007 at 9:41 am #68578
Similarly even fear could be something naturally selected…
February 5, 2007 at 3:44 am #68596
As for love, I’ve read that we are genetically programmed to try to help those who are closely related to us because those individuals have the most genes similar to or identical to ours, so this is sort of an extension of procreating our genes directly. Polygamy is a way to increase the number of offspring we have, but that must be balanced against the need to support and raise those children so that they all have a chance to survival; this may be a possible biological reason for monogamy.
As for fear, I could see how that would be naturally selected for, especially in terms of being cautious of or avoiding danger.
February 5, 2007 at 3:52 am #68599
My suggestion would be to start a new thread on your topic. This particular thread really just needs to die.
February 5, 2007 at 12:12 pm #68615quote AstusAleator:
I am considering it…trying to recap this thread. Once I create it I could use ur feedback too. Don’t you think that this post has digressed into religion a bit? And none of us were actually were talking about the origin of life ❗
But what were we talking about then?
Should I name the new topic as Origins of life: Part 2…?
February 7, 2007 at 3:39 am #68662
well, if you want to know about the things you listed above, you aren’t looking for origins hypotheses, so I wouldn’t name it so…
I’d name it Natural Selection, or something like that. The only reason this thread is so long and hairy is because "origins" tread on religious toes, which is something I would advise you to avoid. There have been plenty of conversations that have taken that path in this forum. You could probably spend a whole day or more reading all of them.
February 8, 2007 at 6:40 am #68722
Finally creating another thread to discuss life matters or rather natural selection matters…http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/viewtopic.php?t=9793
February 9, 2007 at 7:28 pm #68804charles broughParticipantquote deostroll:
I am surprised that this seems strange to you! I have never seen anyone or any living thing that was not striving to survive? What could be more natural? If we and other anmials did not strive to survive, we would not survive because we all compete for food and resources. We human population has increased over the thousands of years because we are successful in that. It would help if you read something about Robert Malthus and Charles Darwin.
You need to get used to the idea of populations growing and surviving because they successfully compete with other species. That is the way the world works and we all should appreciate nature for there is nothing else. There is so much to it that we can never learn it all.
May 2, 2013 at 8:06 am #113766defenderoffaithParticipant
Question: "Did the Israelites in the book of Exodus cross the Red Sea or the Reed Sea?"
Answer: The Hebrew word translated “red” in some 23 Old Testament verses dealing with the Exodus is the Hebrew word suph whose root is thought to be of Egyptian origin and meant a reed, especially the papyrus. So, while it is true that the Hebrew words yam suph can be translated “Sea of Reeds” or “Reed Sea,” the question that must be asked is, which is the best translation of the words to correctly convey the meaning of the Hebrew passages? Also, we must take into consideration whether these passages, most commonly translated “Red Sea,” are in fact referring to what today is known as the Red Sea or are they, as some liberal scholars assert, really referring to a marshy area by the Rea Sea or possibly some smaller, shallower lake nearby? This is crucial because, if it was not the Red Sea, then the Israelites could have crossed without God’s miraculous intervention of parting the sea and stopping the heavier Egyptian chariots. This is really the crux of the debate: did God miraculously intervene, as the Bible says He did, or was the crossing by the Israelites simply a natural event?
When we look at the many different passages in the Scripture where the term yam suph or “Red Sea” is used, it becomes very clear that it is correctly translated as “Red Sea” and is indeed referring to the large body of water commonly called the Red Sea or Gulf of Suez. The only way that one could look at these verses and believe they are speaking of some shallow lake or marshy area is if one has a preconceived bias towards that translation, ignoring not only the historical evidence but, more importantly, the scriptural context. The Scriptures give us a clear understanding that the body of water the Israelites crossed was a large and deep body of water, and the only one in that area fitting that description is the Red Sea.
One evidence that “Red Sea” is the correct translation and the correct body of water is found in the Greek Septuagint from 200 B.C. This is the earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible known, and the words yam suph are consistently translated with the Greek words eruthros thalassa or “Red Sea” (see Acts 7:36; Hebrews 11:29). Therefore, the historical evidence is that these words in the Bible do refer to the actual Red Sea and not some lesser body of water. Further evidence comes from the context of the passages themselves. First, the sea had to be deep enough to drown the Egyptian army and destroy their chariots. Those liberal scholars who want to say this is referring to some shallow, marshy area have to throw out the context of the passages or believe that a whole Egyptian army can be drowned in a couple of feet of water. Also, in 1 Kings 9:26 we see King Solomon building a fleet of ships on the shore of the Rea Sea in the land of Edom—hardly practical if the body of water known as the Red Sea is merely a marshy area or small shallow lake. Clearly, the body of water yam suph refers to can be none other than the Red Sea.
The context of the passages and the way the words yam suph have been translated throughout history make it clear that the Israelites did indeed cross the Red Sea, a 1,350-mile-long body of water extending from the Indian Ocean. In some places, the Red Sea is more than 7,200 feet deep and more than 100 miles wide. While the Israelites would have crossed the Red Sea in what is now known as the Gulf of Suez, this is the large body of water God supernaturally parted, and He used it to destroy the Egyptian army and allow the Israelites to pass safely through, just as the Scriptures describe.
May 2, 2013 at 10:29 am #113767JackBeanParticipant
And who was talking about Israelis and Red Sea?
July 10, 2013 at 12:41 pm #114069animartcoParticipant
Hi Deostrol I am not sure what you are getting at but you seem to say everything progresses towards a minimum degree of survival. Once the species is surviving it stops evolving? Any further evolution happens only if that survival is threatened. This is a very valid question and one that I think is never looked into nowadays. It used to be called the Saltation theory, but it went out of fashion and when something in science goes out of fashion scientists tend to deny that it ever existed. We now tend to assume that evolution is a constant process that never stops. But if we are wrong in this assumption it begs the question of how fast can we expect homo sapiens to change given the rapid increase in the rate of technological dependence.
July 12, 2013 at 6:17 am #114076jeffzParticipant
I always like discussion very much and when it comes to my favorite subject then how can i avoid it. Nice to read the whole discussions of you guys. Nice work, keep it up.
July 13, 2013 at 2:59 pm #114086CatParticipantquote animartco:
Evolution is change over time. It never stops. When selective pressure is lifted (conditions favorable = easy survival), you observe increase in differentiation. When it’s applied again, large portion will be eliminated…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.