|
Post by Observing on Jun 27, 2007 10:20:36 GMT -5
Las, evolution happens. How it happens is constantly being refined. We don't have all the answers to evolution, anymore than we have all the answers about stars and planets. But, we are getting there. But, there is an amazing article on big changes about to take place in our understanding of evolution. Read www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26essay.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=sloginThanks for the link
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2007 10:21:32 GMT -5
Observing. Yes, I agree, and find all this quite interesting. Abraham came from Sumer, where your story comes from. So there is a fit there with this Gilgamesh business (I have personally seen the clay tablet this is written upon.) I think the "seven days" business comes from this: Seven is completeness to the Hebrews. There are seven churches of Revelation, only, there are more in the bible, and they are mentioned. But, seven it is, as if there were only seven. And, Cain killed his brother and fled to another tribe. So we must not presume that Adam was the only man on earth.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 27, 2007 11:27:24 GMT -5
Las, evolution happens. How it happens is constantly being refined. We don't have all the answers to evolution, anymore than we have all the answers about stars and planets. But, we are getting there. But, there is an amazing article on big changes about to take place in our understanding of evolution. Read www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26essay.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=sloginBert question: Do you believe God placed adam upon earth? How many years ago? Did he evolve?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2007 11:34:25 GMT -5
I wonder: it says that God breathed life into Adam and he became a living soul. Doesn't say that about plants, animals or other people on the earth, does it? Does "breathe" mean life or spirit? But we have all evolved from where we were five or ten thousand years ago (you wouldn't notice it!)
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 27, 2007 13:11:36 GMT -5
I wonder: it says that God breathed life into Adam and he became a living soul. Doesn't say that about plants, animals or other people on the earth, does it? Does "breathe" mean life or spirit? But we have all evolved from where we were five or ten thousand years ago (you wouldn't notice it!) Don't agree
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Jun 27, 2007 13:16:40 GMT -5
It's possible consider the "breath of life" to be the living soul put within Adam. In other words, he was the very first "person" of God's creation to have a soul. It fits well with the idea we have that animals can't have souls.
Thanks, Bert, for your ideas re: Genesis 1. How do you feel about the second creation story, beginning in Genesis 2? About first forming Adam from the dust of the earth, finding him lonely so making all the animals to try to find him a mate, finally giving up and taking a rib from him to make a woman? Is this somehow based on fact, too?
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 27, 2007 13:22:05 GMT -5
Creation scientists have figured out that things pretty much work the way they were mean't to work...for many things would be thrown out of balance otherwise..small creatures need all there body parts in order to survive as well as we humans also balance is Key(how could a small creature exist with half a heart Bert or part of this or part of that?So what do you think of evolution now Bert...I think it's time you do the right thing Bert and give the glory to God a creator designer
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Jun 27, 2007 13:36:10 GMT -5
I'm sorry, las, evolution is the foundation of a lot of our knowledge. If we throw out everything we know about evolution, we will have to discard half of the medical field including DNA studies, all of the biology field, etc. etc. We can't afford to go back to the dark ages. We are going to have to separate religious fundamental beliefs from practical scientific studies. We will have to understand there are two kinds of "truths"...our mythos, and our logos. If we can't keep this separation between religion and science, then our religious beliefs will have to evolve to keep up as we keep learning.
|
|
|
Post by Free Agent on Jun 27, 2007 13:42:23 GMT -5
The earliest strata of fossil life reveals life forms such as you would find in life forms of the soil. God created the earth/soil prior to the plants and animals and the soil life fossils would be beneath the fossils of the plants and animals. The Cambrian strata is a picture of the creation of plant and animal fossil life. In the creation of plant and animal life, there was an explosion of life because God made them all within a short time. There are many more species that He created than are still inexistence today, some of which are still currently in existence without "general" evolutionary change. Thus, the "tree of life" is actually topsy turvy, more species of life in the beginning than in the end -opposite of what one would expect in an evolutionary scenario. A big problem with the idea of "general evolution as an explanation for life." To view the evidence for this, watch the video on this site, link at the bottom called "The Fossil Record"
[ftp]http://www.bible.ca/tracks/videos-quotes.htm[/ftp]
|
|
|
Post by Free Agent on Jun 27, 2007 13:54:16 GMT -5
Another huge problem with the idea of "general evolution" being the orgin of life, is that the evolutionists have to say that life was spontaneously generated at one time from something non-living. There was research done by Miller-Urey to try to find evidence that this happened. Current high school and college text books use this outdated information (from the 50's) to try to convince students of this possibility. But now, we know that the research is faulty and the experiments have actually done more to prove that this supposed step from non-living to living is not possible by only the powers contained within the universe.
Read for yourself the problems with this research: [ftp]http://www.answersingenesis.org:80/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp[/ftp]
|
|
|
Post by Free Agent on Jun 27, 2007 13:56:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jun 27, 2007 14:04:24 GMT -5
It's possible consider the "breath of life" to be the living soul put within Adam. In other words, he was the very first "person" of God's creation to have a soul. It fits well with the idea we have that animals can't have souls. Thanks, Bert, for your ideas re: Genesis 1. How do you feel about the second creation story, beginning in Genesis 2? About first forming Adam from the dust of the earth, finding him lonely so making all the animals to try to find him a mate, finally giving up and taking a rib from him to make a woman? Is this somehow based on fact, too? There are religions that believe that plants are alive, animals are alive and have a soul, and man is alive, has a soul, and a spirit. The definitions of the soul and the spirit are left, as far as I can tell, as an exercise for the reader! As far as the rib story - if it was removed from Adam it would follow that future humans would not be affected; acquired traits are not inherited. On the other hand - it also would support Francisco Redi and others' research that life comes from life and the idea of spontaneous generation proposed by Aristotle was incorrect. However, that does leave us in a rather precarious position concerning Adam. But created from the dust (or perhaps wet dust - mud/clay) does fit in with at least one of the theories regarding the origin of life. There are a lot of theories regarding the creation of life. The ideas centering around the black smokers or sea foam/bubbles seem to be where the research is heading.
|
|
|
Post by techie on Jun 27, 2007 14:11:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jun 27, 2007 14:17:47 GMT -5
Another huge problem with the idea of "general evolution" being the orgin of life, is that the evolutionists have to say that life was spontaneously generated at one time from something non-living. There was research done by Miller-Urey to try to find evidence that this happened. Current high school and college text books use this outdated information (from the 50's) to try to convince students of this possibility. But now, we know that the research is faulty and the experiments have actually done more to prove that this supposed step from non-living to living is not possible by only the powers contained within the universe. Read for yourself the problems with this research: [ftp]http://www.answersingenesis.org:80/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp[/ftp] There are a lot of problems with most original research that was done over 50 years ago. It was a start and showed that although the amino acids were formed that the rest of the material that formed would have quickly terminated the development of more complex molecules. On the other hand, the science books that present Millers experiment as anything other than a first start are not in use (for the most part) but are still used by the creationists in an attempt to discredit all research into the origins of life. The very nature of research means that ideas are hypothesized, tested, offered for peer review, retested, and then modified, if required, to fit the new data. Remember, at one time tomatoes were thought to be poisonous. You have to change your hypothesis to match the facts, not distort the facts to support your hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by freeagent on Jun 27, 2007 14:30:32 GMT -5
The amino acids that we formed were amino acids that produce death. Nothing living could come out of those amino acids. Read the article.
Three of my children just completed a year of college level biology and the faulty Miller-Urey aruements are still in the text books. They not found anything new. They've made no progress in this area.
|
|
|
Post by 2Nate9Bert on Jun 27, 2007 14:58:40 GMT -5
You have to change your hypothesis to match the facts, not distort the facts to support your hypothesis. Got that?
|
|
|
Post by actually on Jun 27, 2007 15:05:50 GMT -5
You have to change your hypothesis to match the facts, not distort the facts to support your hypothesis. Got that? They will never "get it."
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 27, 2007 16:42:17 GMT -5
To Bert Do you believe Bert that all the particles come crashing together over millions of years then all of a sudden you got a human being as a result..hardly soon as a human being dies he rotts eh? everything has to be working all at once
I think that there is an all wise creator at work
just like a dictionary being the explosion of a printing press hardly it had some brains and planning behind it everything produces after it's seed
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jun 27, 2007 17:51:52 GMT -5
The amino acids that we formed were amino acids that produce death. Nothing living could come out of those amino acids. Read the article. I have read it. And there is no place in the article that even mentions "amino acids that produce death". The reaction that terminates the formation of poly-peptides is due to other compounds that are produced in high concentration in the same time. Also, there is the question of what the atmospheric conditions were at the time. It is possible that it was an oxidizing rather than a reducing environment. In an aqueous environment there is also the problem of hydrolysis breaking any formed polymers into monomers. Miller's experiment did demonstrate that organic compounds could be produced from inorganic materials. The experiments were not faulty. The initial conclusions were correct in that amino acids were created. What was incorrect was the statements stating that the origins of life had been discovered. Given the misquote from the referenced article above it would be interesting to know just what the biology text does say. Odd you would think that. I can think of several hypothesis that have been presented and are being investigated. Eigen and Wächtershäuser have both put forth ideas. To say they have found nothing new is just wrong. Forgot the link to a submitted paper on the subject: www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/12
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jun 27, 2007 17:52:59 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2007 19:22:48 GMT -5
Talking about evolution can take away people's faith. You can be arguing one thing, ie how biological systems change and someone else can be thinking something totally different, ie "Everything I believed about the bible has come crashing down."
Same thing happened with astronomy in the 1500's and 1600's. Some people are figuring out the heliocentric theory and others are concluding that the bible has deceived them.
Yes las, I believe in a creator. I just see Him as doing a creation differently to how you see Him doing it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2007 19:27:18 GMT -5
Las - I don't believe that things just came "crashing together" or that we once had half a heart. Nature doesn't work that way. Yes, we still are stuck at the Urey-Miller stage with the first organic soup. Trouble is - there is nothing on the earth we can look at which is helping us. (Oddly enough, we might find it on the moon where large chunks of the first earth may still sit, torn away during meteorite bombardments - bit I digress.)
The argument about that first soup will go on for a long while yet, I presume. But my problem with anti-evolutionists is that they deny what we already DO know.
Now las, two questions: a) do you believe that the human I posted here is real? b) do you believe that the seas brought forth life?
nb as for your comment "dont agree" regards us having evolved over the past 5 - 10,000 years: Over that period of time there have been substantial changes to our immune system; lactose tolerance and skull morphology (slightly larger brain and slightly smaller jaw) that come to mind. Interestingly, Darwinian theory can only explain the immune change.
|
|
jgb
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by jgb on Jun 28, 2007 5:32:50 GMT -5
And one day to the Lord is like a thousand years, who says his "week" is the same as what we use to measure time!!
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 28, 2007 10:01:36 GMT -5
And one day to the Lord is like a thousand years, who says his "week" is the same as what we use to measure time!! No one
|
|
|
Post by freeagent on Jun 28, 2007 13:45:01 GMT -5
"In addition, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller–Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.31,32"
"The Miller–Urey experiments produced many other compounds aside from amino acids, resulting in a sticky mass that was actually further from the building blocks of life than were the postulated original precursor chemicals. Toxic compounds produced include cyanides, carbon monoxide, and others—actually most of the dark matter in the solution could not be identified by the researchers in 1953.21"
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 28, 2007 14:58:44 GMT -5
Evolution says things evolved over millions of years Evolution doesn't recognize a creator designer
|
|
carbon dating and blind dating
Guest
|
Post by carbon dating and blind dating on Jun 28, 2007 15:45:02 GMT -5
Without looking it up, I think the figure is about 4,700,000,000 years. That is also the age of the meteorites which fall to the ground. It is also the age of the sun. Some stars, and presumably their planets, can reach an age of nearly 13,000,000,000 years. You won't find anything in the visible universe older than about 15 billion years, if I recall. These figures don't mean God didn't create the heavens and the earth. Bert - From the website you provided: Directly dating MSA sites older than about 40,000 years is problematic because they are beyond the range of radiocarbon (C14) dating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2007 21:25:22 GMT -5
Yes, I know. But we don't use carbon dating for anything other than recent events. And the carbon in the atmosphere fluctuates too much.
There are all sorts of ways you can date things. Even sunshine on grains of sand can trigger internal clock mechanisms within the silicon.
The common one is Uranium - it decays to lead at a set rate. Without looking it up I think Uranium is half lead in about four and a half billion years - so there's a handy clock there.
|
|