Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Grand Theory of Life
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 61 of 77 (540783)
12-29-2009 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Peg
12-28-2009 6:07 PM


You assume that there was a simple beginning because you acknowledge that "complex things don't just occur without simpler precursors"
Nope, it's not an assumption. It just seems the most likely option.
and becaues their is no evidence of life before the cambrian period,
Yes, there is. .
Plenty of evidence.
So the 'life had a simple beginning' is not consistent with the available evidence...,not by a long shot.
You haven't shown it. You've given quotes from books by astronomers (Hoyle et al and Jastrow.) and from people in the 1950s. Actually, you didn't do that: You took the quotes from a creationist propaganda piece.
Unsurprisingly, it doesn't say what you hoped it did.
because miller was unable to create anything living. That experiement was not a success if it was to see if a primitive atmosphere could spontaneously generate life.
I know how it goes. I told you I read the article you basically copied the argument from. I was just pointing out how you neglected to actually develop the argument correctly. As I said
quote:
I just realized you lifted that section out of WTBTS' book, "Creator?" without really appreciating what you were doing. The bit about Miller in that book starts off with the experiment being hailed as a success, but that the enthusiasm died because the problem was more difficult than originally believed. You might want go on to quote the Author of 'of Pandas and People' with a view to portraying him as a voice of science - with a straight face. It is his claim after all, a creationist, that it is 'fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.', upon which I think your argument fundamentally rests. Incredulity from a young earth creationist!
Even if Miller was attempting to create life, and even if that failed, that is not evidence that life cannot naturally generate. The reasons should be obvious, see my previous post for the kind of thing it does demonstrate with regards to the origin of life.
That we haven't solved all the answers in the Grand Theory of Life is a given in this debate. I fail to see how specifying an unsolved question is relevant.
because RNA and DNA are necessary for reproduction
Even if that were true, and I see no reason to take your word for it, that doesn't address the issue. I still fail to see how specifying an unsolved question is relevant. Fundamentally, it isn't an issue under debate in this thread.
First of all - do you agree that most of the ancestral links would still have the same evidence in support of them? Agreed - there would be a weakening of the position for universal common descent, but only a small one.
what's the alternative?
Creation?
Which would mean that all creatures were actually created individually including man. this would put an end to decent with modification and the idea that mutations cause species to change into new species
You didn't actually answer the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 6:07 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 5:01 AM Modulous has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 62 of 77 (540785)
12-29-2009 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Peg
12-29-2009 2:52 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
542 Million to 488 Million Years Ago
The Cambrian period, part of the Paleozoic era, produced the most intense burst of evolution ever known. The Cambrian Explosion saw an incredible diversity of life emerge, including many major animal groups alive today. Among them were the chordates, to which vertebrates (animals with backbones) such as humans belong.
they dont call it the 'cambrian explosion' for nothing.
Peg, can you describe any other kind of explosion which takes 54 MILLION years?
Yes, there was a great diversity of life, but you make it sound like on a Tuesday there were 3 animals and by Friday there were 100,000,000.
Instead what was happening is that animals were developing hard body parts because, for the first time, the chemistry of the ocean allowed it. As a result there was a bit of an arms race with many different types of creatures splitting into a multitude of different sub groups over MILLIONS of years.
And what came before it?
"The earliest living organisms were microscopic bacteria, which show up in the fossil record as early as 3.4 BILLION years ago
the first multi celled animals came along much later then this
according to the same Nat Geo article
"The first multicelled animals appeared in the fossil record almost 600 MILLION years ago...these fall into three main categories. The simplest of these soft-bodied creatures were sponges....cnidarians, which included sea anemones, corals, and jellyfish...annelids, or segmented flatworms
So if there is any confusion, its because the information provided isnt consistent.
So, follow along with your own post.
For roughly 3 billion years there were single celled organisms. Those organisms diversified and began changing the chemistry of the ocean.
Over those billions of years the first multicellular creatures evolved. At first little more than 2-3 single cell creatures cooperating.
By the time we hit 600 million years ago, the multicellular (but soft bodied) creatures are living in a world where the chemistry has made it possible for them to leave behind fossil evidence.
A little time after that, the chemistry had changed enough to give us the Cambrian.
I know that these are extremely large numbers and it's hard to understand exactly how long 50 million years really is. It's a very very very very long time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 2:52 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 5:16 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 63 of 77 (540789)
12-29-2009 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Modulous
12-29-2009 3:15 AM


Modulous writes:
Nope, it's not an assumption. It just seems the most likely option.
its for this exact same reason that creationists cannot accept evolution.
Modulous writes:
Even if Miller was attempting to create life, and even if that failed, that is not evidence that life cannot naturally generate.
Ok granted, can you cite any examples of anyone who has been able to prove that life spontaneously generates?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2009 3:15 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2009 6:59 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 64 of 77 (540790)
12-29-2009 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Nuggin
12-29-2009 3:19 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Nuggin writes:
Instead what was happening is that animals were developing hard body parts because, for the first time, the chemistry of the ocean allowed it. As a result there was a bit of an arms race with many different types of creatures splitting into a multitude of different sub groups over MILLIONS of years.
ok, so there must have been a lot of creatures developing these parts
Let me ask you why we dont see partially developed features, but rather fully formed features? If there really were lots/millions of creatures developing all sorts of new body parts, they should be readily available in the fossil record. Do we see them?
Nuggin writes:
Over those billions of years the first multicellular creatures evolved. At first little more than 2-3 single cell creatures cooperating.
By the time we hit 600 million years ago, the multicellular (but soft bodied) creatures are living in a world where the chemistry has made it possible for them to leave behind fossil evidence.
Nuggin i think you've missed the point that the time between 3.6 Billion years and 600 Million years is also a very long time with very little evolution.
from 3.6 BILLION years ago to as little as 600 Million years ago, there was bacteria living and not much else...then suddenly within 58 million years, we get a burst of all sorts of many-celled lifeforms?
how can that make sense??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2009 3:19 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2009 10:02 AM Peg has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 65 of 77 (540794)
12-29-2009 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Peg
12-29-2009 5:01 AM


Nope, it's not an assumption. It just seems the most likely option.
its for this exact same reason that creationists cannot accept evolution.
And the point of the thread is that this is not a valid reason to reject evolution since the evolution of life is not the origin of life. That's what this thread is about. You have yet to explain how two as yet un-united fields is evidence that one of the fields of study is doomed to failure, or how the problems of one field can mean problems for the other.
I understand that if all of natural history as presently known was shown false, this would cause serious problems for the natural origin of life - but I do not understand how a non-natural origin for life has an impact on the natural history that follow it.
If it was disproven that the assassination of the Arch-Duke caused WWI, would that also disprove WWI happened?
Ok granted, can you cite any examples of anyone who has been able to prove that life spontaneously generates?
Once again, that there is no complete natural account for the origin of life is a given in this debate. This debate is about how this does or does not affect the study of evolution.
First of all - do you agree that most of the ancestral links would still have the same evidence in support of them? Agreed - there would be a weakening of the position for universal common descent, but only a small one.
what's the alternative?
Creation?
Which would mean that all creatures were actually created individually including man. this would put an end to decent with modification and the idea that mutations cause species to change into new species
You didn't actually answer the question.
You still haven't - hopefully you see now why I am asking it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 5:01 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 7:55 AM Modulous has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 66 of 77 (540799)
12-29-2009 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Modulous
12-29-2009 6:59 AM


Modulous writes:
I understand that if all of natural history as presently known was shown false, this would cause serious problems for the natural origin of life - but I do not understand how a non-natural origin for life has an impact on the natural history that follow it.
I find that hard to believe.
What a non natural origin for life would prove is that life was created.
this would imply a supernatural first cause. It would also put an end to the silly notion that all living beings decended from a primordial soup.
Modulous writes:
If it was disproven that the assassination of the Arch-Duke caused WWI, would that also disprove WWI happened?
No it wouldnt. But it would certainly change the understanding of how the war ensued. I would hope that it would be the same for evolution but somehow I doubt people would change their view.
to answer your question
"how this does or does not affect the study of evolution.?"
I would say that it would have to be recognized that all living things were created individually and therefore trying to find linkages to ancestors would be a thing of the embarrasing past.
Scientists could focus more on genetics and work at important things such as disease control and how to feed the starving millions...how to get water to the waterless regions and how to treat and dispose of sewage safely. They could spend their time working out how to extend the life of telomeres and slow the aging process, they could find a cure for the common cold or more serious ailments like Aids which is said to kill 60million people over the next 20 years.
But i guess to many scientists, proving evolution is just as important as any of the above. I really hope that one day they are able to prove how life began because then at least all the time spent wont be in vain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2009 6:59 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2009 10:18 AM Peg has replied
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2009 10:45 AM Peg has replied
 Message 71 by Briterican, posted 12-29-2009 2:12 PM Peg has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 67 of 77 (540805)
12-29-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Peg
12-29-2009 5:16 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
ok, so there must have been a lot of creatures developing these parts
Let me ask you why we dont see partially developed features, but rather fully formed features? If there really were lots/millions of creatures developing all sorts of new body parts, they should be readily available in the fossil record. Do we see them?
Can you define a "partial developed part" for me?
Is an antelope with a single pronged horn a partial developed moose antler?
Nuggin i think you've missed the point that the time between 3.6 Billion years and 600 Million years is also a very long time with very little evolution.
No, you've missed it. You are still putting most of your emphasis on changes in morphology.
This opinion of your implies that all single celled organisms are basically the same and that bigger animals who are morphologically different are more diverse.
That's incorrect. There is WAY more diversity between the two ends of the bacterial spectrum than between a human and a worm.
A great deal of evolution took place over that time period - for example life forms evolved the ability to use sunlight for food. That's HUGE.
from 3.6 BILLION years ago to as little as 600 Million years ago, there was bacteria living and not much else...then suddenly within 58 million years, we get a burst of all sorts of many-celled lifeforms?
how can that make sense??
Like virtually everything about evolution, you complain that it doesn't make sense because you have have misunderstood the facts.
NO ONE EXCEPT YOU is saying that it was only bacteria for 3 billion years then suddenly a bunch of fish and crabs.
Do you _HONESTLY_ believe that that's what evolution says? Do you _HONESTLY_ believe that all the educated people in the world are just absolutely retarded and have overlooked something as glaringly obvious as that?
_HONESTLY_?
Here's a timeline with some markers
-3.6 billion years ago simple single celled life
(evolution occurs allowing for greater complexity in single celled organisms until we get...)
-2.5 billion years ago photosynthesizing complex single celled life
(evolution occurs within this group and others, simple singe celled organisms give rise to eukaryotic single celled organisms)
-1.5 billion years ago - earliest evidenec of eukaryotic
(These new cells are capable of specialization and cooperation in a way that simple single cells can not, so they give rise to...)
-1 billion years ago - early multicellular life
- 800 million years ago - successful multicellular life has diversified into the first "animals"
- 600 million years ago - the ocean chemistry has changed enough to allow the formation of hard body parts and so we see more representatives of the variation preserved in the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 5:16 AM Peg has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 68 of 77 (540807)
12-29-2009 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peg
12-29-2009 7:55 AM


Modulous writes:
I understand that if all of natural history as presently known was shown false, this would cause serious problems for the natural origin of life - but I do not understand how a non-natural origin for life has an impact on the natural history that follow it.
I find that hard to believe.
What a non natural origin for life would prove is that life was created.
this would imply a supernatural first cause. It would also put an end to the silly notion that all living beings decended from a primordial soup.
Peg, stop and think for a second.
Let's pretend that there was a supernatural first cause. A life spark. NOT a magic Jew Wizard creating creatures out of clay.
HOW does that change what happened AFTER that? Whether or not life arose chemically or magically, what arose has subsequently gone through a series of changes for which we have a record.
Further, no one has been claiming primordial soup in a long time - but EVEN IF WE WERE, who are you to say that the divine spark didn't cause primordial soup?
I would say that it would have to be recognized that all living things were created individually and therefore trying to find linkages to ancestors would be a thing of the embarrasing past.
WHY?! You've absolutely gone from 0 to lightspeed without passing through ANY of the other speeds.
NO ONE is talking about a Magical Jew Wizard and his magic playdough in this scenario. You can not leap from "what if there were a non-natural source of first life" to "every single thing which ever existed or ever will exist is individually created by a single Jew".
It's a ridiculous leap.
Scientists could focus more on genetics and work at important things such as disease control and how to feed the starving millions...
Without evolution sciences could not work in these fields AT ALL.
Without evolution there is no explanation for disease aside from "God hates you". The seasonal flu virus would have to have been specifically made by God with the intention of killing people. Trying to cure it would be BLASPHEME.
Further, trying to feed people would likewise require changing God's plan. If people were to starve it would be because God didn't want them to have food. We could plant any seed anywhere and have a rational expectation that if God wanted them to live, he'd make a plant grow which could survive the desert/permafrost/flooding and give them food. If he didn't, he wants them to die.
how to treat and dispose of sewage safely.
If there is bacteria and sickness in sewage it's because God INDIVIDUALLY created EACH AND EVERY ONE of those things and PUT it there with the intention of making people sick. TRying to FIX God's mistake is blaspheme.
They could spend their time working out how to extend the life of telomeres and slow the aging process, they could find a cure for the common cold or more serious ailments like Aids which is said to kill 60million people over the next 20 years.
Again. In your world God created not just AIDS but ALL of the hundreds of thousands of sub-varients of AIDS. Trying to cure it would be an afront to his "plan".
But i guess to many scientists, proving evolution is just as important as any of the above.
NOTHING you've cited is fixable EXCEPT through a biology with an understanding of evolution.
It's YOU, the Creationist, who is arguing that these things are DELIBERATELY created by God with cruel intentions. Without evolution there is LITERALLY no other explanation for things like H1N1. If children die from this "swine flu" it's because God deliberately wanted to kill them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 7:55 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 6:48 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 69 of 77 (540813)
12-29-2009 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peg
12-29-2009 7:55 AM


I understand that if all of natural history as presently known was shown false, this would cause serious problems for the natural origin of life - but I do not understand how a non-natural origin for life has an impact on the natural history that follow it.
I find that hard to believe.
What do you find hard to believe? Do you find it hard to believe that I understand that if all of natural history as presently known was shown false, this would cause serious problems for the natural origin of life? Do you find it hard to believe that I do not understand how a non-natural origin for life has an impact on the natural history that follow it?
What a non natural origin for life would prove is that life was created.
this would imply a supernatural first cause. It would also put an end to the silly notion that all living beings decended from a primordial soup.
Yes. And this would shoot down all of those natural Grand Theories of Life.
But it wouldn't shoot down evolution. Which is the point I'm making.
No it wouldnt. But it would certainly change the understanding of how the war ensued.
Exactly. It wouldn't change any battles that occurred, it wouldn't affect what we know about how the war unfolded or evolved.
I would say that it would have to be recognized that all living things were created individually and therefore trying to find linkages to ancestors would be a thing of the embarrasing past.
That makes no sense. If some life was specially created in the past, that does not preclude present life forms from being related to one another. So how would it affect what we know about the evolution of primates, for instance?
You seem to be stuck in a strange dichotomy: Either all life naturally occurred and evolved or it was specially created in biblical kinds. You do realize there are other options, right?
Scientists could focus more on genetics and work at important things such as disease control and how to feed the starving millions...how to get water to the waterless regions and how to treat and dispose of sewage safely. They could spend their time working out how to extend the life of telomeres and slow the aging process, they could find a cure for the common cold or more serious ailments like Aids which is said to kill 60million people over the next 20 years.
Funnily enough, almost all the money goes into these subjects anyway. It's not like origins of life research is sucking up all the Cancer Research grants or something.
However, if there is one thing we have learned: We cannot assume that learning about primitive life won't teach us anything useful about present life. Sometimes its the unexpected side effects of research that give us interesting dividends.
But i guess to many scientists, proving evolution is just as important as any of the above. I really hope that one day they are able to prove how life began because then at least all the time spent wont be in vain.
Evolution has already been proven. But did you know that one of the evidences of evolution also happens to be useful in understanding Cancer and HIV? Good old ERVs.
So instead of arguing from consequences (By studying this, it means less time studying that), and instead of jumping from 'the origin of life was not natural' to 'chimpanzees are therefore not related to humans' would you care to at any point tackle the issues I'm raising in the OP and beyond?
I'm not really all that interested in you telling me what your opinion is, I just want to see you defend it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 7:55 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 7:03 PM Modulous has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 70 of 77 (540823)
12-29-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Peg
12-29-2009 2:52 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Hi Peg,
You present this quote from me;
Granny writes:
{"Enchanted Loom" says} absolutely nothing about any "sudden burst of life". You added that bit yourself
You then go on to quote a Nat Geo article (with a broken link), which seems a strange way of proving what Jastrow did or did not say. Still, let's take a look...
Peg writes:
they dont call it the 'cambrian explosion' for nothing.
As Nuggin has already noted, this "explosion" took tens of millions of years. That is hardly abrupt. The rate of evolution at that time was comparatively fast, yes, but the increase in diversity did not take place overnight.
Peg writes:
And what came before it?
The Ediacaran biota. You know Peg, a quick glimpse at Wikipedia would be sufficient to tell you this. It's almost as though you are averse to knowing the answers to your own questions.
Anyway, this;
is an example of multicellular Pre-Cambrian life. It's called Charnia masoni. I chose to show you this one because it is a cast of the holotype, which is kept just down the road from me at Leicester's New walk Museum so I've seen it many times and I'm rather fond of it.
NatGeo writes:
"The earliest living organisms were microscopic bacteria, which show up in the fossil record as early as 3.4 BILLION years ago
Peg writes:
the first multi celled animals came along much later then this
according to the same Nat Geo article
Yes, the first ANIMALS. That is not the same as the first organisms. You appreciate the difference yes?
Peg writes:
So if there is any confusion, its because the information provided isnt consistent.
No, the article is entirely consistent. Your confusion arises from your insistence on discussing (and rejecting out of hand) a topic that you plainly do not understand. I'm sorry if I seem rude, but honestly, you are attempting to challenge one of the best evidenced theories in existence, whilst not even understanding its basic terminology. That's as if I were to say I rejected the Bible only to show that I didn't know who Jesus was.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 2:52 AM Peg has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 71 of 77 (540852)
12-29-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peg
12-29-2009 7:55 AM


Primordial soup, or Magical Sky Fairy?
Hi Peg
Peg writes:
It would also put an end to the silly notion that all living beings decended from a primordial soup.
As someone else mentioned, the "primordial soup" idea is not the prevailing view. Many believe that the first life was very subterranean, leading only much later to surface life.
Paul Davies writes:
"Organisms that don't eat organic matter, but manufacture thir own biomass directly, are known as autotrophs ("self-feeders"). Plants are the most familiar autotrophs; they use the energy of sunlight to turn inorganic substances like carbon dioxide and water into organic material. Autotrophs that make biomass using chemical energy rather than light energy have been dubbed chemoautotrophs, or chemotrophs for short. The discovery of true chemotrophs was a pivotal event in the history of biology. Here was the basis of a completely independent life chain, a hierarchy of organisms that could exist alongside familiar surface life, yet without being dependent on sunlight for its primary energy source. For the first time it became possible to conceive of ecosystems free of the complexities of photosynthesis. Scientists began to glimpse a vast new biological realm that has lain hidden for billions of years."
Peg writes:
Scientists could focus more on genetics and work at important things such as disease control and how to feed the starving millions...how to get water to the waterless regions and how to treat and dispose of sewage safely.
As others have pointed out, only through the study of evolutionary biology have we even been able to come upon advanced solutions to these types of problems.
The common cold is caused by viruses, and a vaccine has not been possible because of the large variety of viruses involved and the fact that they mutate rapidly. Hmmm, where have we seen that word before... mutate... hmmm. Oh yeah, evolutionary biology!
Peg writes:
But i guess to many scientists, proving evolution is just as important as any of the above. I really hope that one day they are able to prove how life began because then at least all the time spent wont be in vain.
Do you honestly think that scientists are single-mindedly out to prove evolution? This is a laughable notion and is tantamount to saying that bakers are out to prove the existence of bread.
As for how life began, there is still a great deal of work going on in this regard. Research in this area has led us to discover microbes that can survive and flourish in temperatures exceeding 100 Celcius, and "superbugs" that subsist on sulpher. We live in exciting times in these respects.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.
Edited by Briterican, : Removed some smart-assedness, inserted a hello.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 7:55 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 72 of 77 (540874)
12-29-2009 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Nuggin
12-29-2009 10:18 AM


Nuggin writes:
It's YOU, the Creationist, who is arguing that these things are DELIBERATELY created by God with cruel intentions. Without evolution there is LITERALLY no other explanation for things like H1N1. If children die from this "swine flu" it's because God deliberately wanted to kill them.
lol, i must have missed that one in bible study
So are you saying that virus's are living creatures? animals? Cause you know they have no cellular structure, they cannot reproduce on their own and they have no metabolism
I would have thought this counts them out as being living things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2009 10:18 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-29-2009 7:11 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 75 by Nuggin, posted 12-30-2009 12:08 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 77 by ThinkDifferent, posted 02-23-2010 12:26 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 73 of 77 (540876)
12-29-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Modulous
12-29-2009 10:45 AM


Modulous writes:
So instead of arguing from consequences (By studying this, it means less time studying that), and instead of jumping from 'the origin of life was not natural' to 'chimpanzees are therefore not related to humans' would you care to at any point tackle the issues I'm raising in the OP and beyond?
I'm not really all that interested in you telling me what your opinion is, I just want to see you defend it.
I have tried to do that multiple times and you keep ignoring it.
I can see that your point of view is that even if life were created, evolution would still prove true. You've said that over and over and I get it.
You havnt really explained how the theory might have to be reviewed though, you've just continued on the vein that 'it would still be true'
So when you say that, what exactly do you mean? In what way would it still be true? Is it still true that humans are related to monkeys, and that monkeys are related to what came before it, and so on an so on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2009 10:45 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2009 3:24 AM Peg has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4319
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 74 of 77 (540878)
12-29-2009 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
12-29-2009 6:48 PM


Peg writes:
So are you saying that virus's are living creatures? animals? Cause you know they have no cellular structure, they cannot reproduce on their own and they have no metabolism
I would have thought this counts them out as being living things.
So are you saying God did not create viruses. I thought he created everything which would include viruses, some of which seem to only have the role of causing diseases and killing people. It does not matter whether they are alive or not they still fulfill that role, so that must have been God's purpose for creating them, right?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 6:48 PM Peg has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 75 of 77 (540916)
12-30-2009 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
12-29-2009 6:48 PM


So are you saying that virus's are living creatures? animals? Cause you know they have no cellular structure, they cannot reproduce on their own and they have no metabolism
Words have meanings Peg.
Viruses are not "animals". Nor are they "plants". Nor are they "fungus". They are viruses.
The are alive because they reproduce and can be rendered dead.
And, because they reproduce, they suffer the same reproductive problem that all life has: imperfect genetic copy.
That means mutation, and mutation means change.
However, if evolution is NOT occurring, then there can be NO mutation and therefore NO change...
UNLESS the Creator does it deliberately.
So, H1N1? God created it special just to kill the several thousand people it'll kill this season. Nice guy, huh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 6:48 PM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024