Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 4:12 PM
27 online now:
dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Tanypteryx (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,996 Year: 5,033/19,786 Month: 1,155/873 Week: 51/460 Day: 51/91 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2425262728
29
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 421 of 425 (543183)
01-15-2010 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by ICANT
01-15-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Life and Kinds
ICANT writes:

I can not find a better answer. Do you have one?

Well, as Robin Williams said in a comedy routine, Couldn't "let there be light" be a metaphor for the "big bang" instead of God turning on a light switch.

Perhaps we should all, Christian or not, ask instead why should an idiosyncratic view of the divine stop aid to Haiti? Why should it be used to refuse care to those who suffer from diseases, including AIDS? Why should it be used to suppress education in the sciences, which has saved billions of lives in this reality? Why discard the Sermon on the Mount in favor of cheap grace, as in Paul?

I agree with Jar, science is how God did it, why the war against science?


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
ó Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. Itís us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 9:07 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Chippo
Junior Member (Idle past 3275 days)
Posts: 9
From: Sydney, NSW, Aus
Joined: 01-10-2010


Message 422 of 425 (543193)
01-16-2010 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by anglagard
01-15-2010 9:14 PM


Re: KIND
Coyote writes:

We can't correct you on this, as you are providing the biblical definition for "kind" (at long last!).

But we can point out that if kinds=species then the ark would have been awfully crowded! In fact, impossibly crowded.

And this is not even counting the stray Brontosaurus or two and all their cousins and in-laws that some believe were taken along for the ride!

anglagard writes:

Way back in the past (the early 70s) I read somewhere that if the purported ark was to hold all species known back then it would have had to have been scaled up to 60 miles long.

Strange that the rules of Leviticus and Deuteronomy become metaphor for convenience while Genesis becomes science due to a simple minded and fundamentally unchristian jealousy of the educated.

I am assuming also that this would not include the multitude of species that would have reproduced many times over and thus pushing the size of the ark required further and further.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by anglagard, posted 01-15-2010 9:14 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2539 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 423 of 425 (543208)
01-16-2010 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by ICANT
01-15-2010 8:26 PM


Re: KIND
Sorry I haven't really read that many of your posts and therefore not really quite so clued up on your position but just have to say Yikes, you have some really weird theology.
It is the first time I have heard the type of position that you seem to take.

So what do you mean by "called forth"? What happens when God "calls forth" a creature?

There was no seas in the beginning therefore no fish were created then.
I'm really confused now. where did you get this idea from? Did the animals drink water in the beginning? Did plants somehow manage to get by without water in the beginning?

from a somewhat confused and amused Arphy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 8:26 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
marjoleinbastin
Junior Member (Idle past 3283 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 01-16-2010


Message 424 of 425 (543215)
01-16-2010 8:35 AM


Research help
Hi! Nice discussion you got going here.
I am currently writing a research paper on how this debate between evolution an creationism is influencing society. I would appreciate if you could complete this short survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/57GMMJR

I'm sorry to spam, but it is difficult to get in contact with US and UK residents (the target group of my paper) while not living in neither country. The topic of these boards is relevant, too, so I hope you don't mind Thank you!


    
Briterican
Member (Idle past 2056 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 425 of 425 (543231)
01-16-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by ICANT
01-15-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Life and Kinds
ICANT writes:

The Bible declares God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living being. Genesis 2:7

I can not find a better answer. Do you have one?

Yep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAH_world_hypothesis

It is known that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are a likely constituent of the primordial sea. PAH's are not normally very soluble in sea water, but when subject to ionizing radiation such as solar UV light, the outer hydrogen atoms can be stripped off and replaced with a hydroxyl group, rendering the PAH's far more soluble in water.

These modified PAHs are amphiphilic, which means that they have parts that are both hydrophilic and hydrophobic. Thus when in solution, like lipids, they tend to self organise themselves in stacks, with the hydrophobic parts protected.

In this self ordering stack, the separation between rings is 0.34 nm. This is the same separation found in RNA and DNA. Smaller molecules will naturally attach themselves to the PAH rings. However PAH rings, while forming, tend to swivel around on one another, which will tend to dislodge attached compounds that would collide with those attached to those above and below. Therefore it encourages preferential attachment of flat molecules such as pyrimidine and purine bases. These bases are similarly amphiphilic and so also tend to line up in similar stacks. This ends up making an effective scaffold for a nucleic acid backbone to form along the bases.

A small change in acidity would then allow the bases to break off from the original stack of PAHs and so form molecules like RNA.

That's just one of many scenarios that are being investigated. It is significantly more plausible and reasonable than any supreme being "breathing life" into dust, which simply raises more questions than it would answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 9:07 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2425262728
29
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019