|
gigitte (f)
|
lol im sure the blood of your lovely wife saved you. thanks jare
i was just pointing out that there are different kinds of evolution theory and then creationsim and ID, and then picked the one i believe
if creationism is literally that earth was created in seven days then ahem ahem i don't know about that one oh! i mean God could have very well done that in seven days its not like i don't believe he has the power to do so. but i have to consider some good evidence that suggests that it wasnt seven literal days. the bible has many kinds of truths and not all of them are literal. a good example i believe is that numbers usually have a significance. the isrealites spent forty years in the desert, jesus fasted for forty days and forty nights. now is this literal? i think not. i think it just means an extended period of time. just like when yoruba people say eku ijo meta (greetings on three days), literally it means i havent seen you in three days, but then again what it really means is i havent seen you in a while, if it has been a long time they will eku ijo four. so maybe seven days is not literal. also the bible kind of points to evolution IMO, plants first, then water stuff, then creepy crawlies, birds, land animals and man was the last. thats very telling
and yup im catholic lol and i never had a problem with evolution and the bible till i came to the US. na real wah for this country, wasting their time on counterproductive arguments. that intelligent design is just another case on its own
|
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
lol im sure the blood of your lovely wife saved you. thanks jare
I am (barely) tolerated by these people, but definitely not loved. There's something in my condition that makes it impossible. What I find very peculiar is that many of these Afrocentric AA's have a distinctly European mode of thinking influenced by rigid Platonian duality. American culture is really European culture taken to the extreme and Afrocentric AA's are indeed very American. i was just pointing out that there are different kinds of evolution theory and then creationsim and ID, and then picked the one i believe
There's really only one TOE, but the discussion centers around the origin of evolutionary forces. Theistic evolution is just evolution whereby the ultimate source of evolutionary process is assumed to be God. A rational explanation in it's own right. if creationism is literally that earth was created in seven days then ahem ahem i don't know about that one oh! i mean God could have very well done that in seven days its not like i don't believe he has the power to do so. but i have to consider some good evidence that suggests that it wasnt seven literal days. the bible has many kinds of truths and not all of them are literal.
That's reasonable. I personally see no reason to assume truth in the Bible (Occham's razor and all), but that doesn't mean others can't, as long as they read it in an allegorical way. Literalism is really shutting of half your brain functions. a good example i believe is that numbers usually have a significance. the isrealites spent forty years in the desert, jesus fasted for forty days and forty nights. now is this literal? i think not. i think it just means an extended period of time. just like when yoruba people say eku ijo meta (greetings on three days), literally it means i havent seen you in three days, but then again what it really means is i havent seen you in a while, if it has been a long time they will eku ijo four. so maybe seven days is not literal. also the bible kind of points to evolution IMO, plants first, then water stuff, then creepy crawlies, birds, land animals and man was the last. thats very telling
Within it's own explanatory framework it can be made consistent, but that doesn' carry it's value to any external people. As long as it gives you value, that's fine. and yup im catholic lol and i never had a problem with evolution and the bible till i came to the US. na real wah for this country, wasting their time on counterproductive arguments. that intelligent design is just another case on its own
It's not only on evolution these arguments are being fought. I find the political spectrum in the US just as outer-worldly as their moral battles. |
|
|
|
|
|
gigitte (f)
|
yeah it gives me a lotta values, anyway it is good that you can see where i am coming from tho i know u don't agree with me unlike some other threads lol.
we love you jare, don mind them
g'night!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
@ nferyn @ Bobbyaf
It's not easy to cram such a complex subject matter into a few one-liners, especially for a non specialist such as myself. I will try anyway: Why should truth be a complex thing? I will consider life to be the ability of a self-organising biological system to reproduce and persists, whereby usable energy into the system is targeted at that persistence and/or reproduction And I guess that self-organizing biological system had to have started with biomolecules, right? You make it sound as if these bio-molecules just happened to come together by chance. Where did these bio-molecules come from? Where did the atomic structure for these bio-molecules come from? All atoms and molecules are very structured. They had to have been designed knowing what we are finding out about these mysterious elements. * complex organic molecules being created by natural processes similar to the ones existing on the early earth has been observed
* self organisation and the emergence of complexity in open thermodynamic systems (such as the earth) has been observed
* the chance that self-replicating biological compounds emerge under early earth conditions (both time wise and chemical composition wise) is far from negligable. The process has been replicated under laboratory conditions Yet not one of these lab experiments have produced life as yet have they? Why has man with all this knowledge from the past not been able to produce life in the form of a bacteria? A single cellular organism. This means that belief in the emergence of the first replicators on earth does not require any faith at all. Quite the opposite! Compare the structure and design of humans. Our ability to think and reason. Are you asking us to accept that humans came from a single-cellular life form, that gradually with time developed into complex creatures? You must be kidding.  Now, once you have self-replicating organical compounds, the possibility to have copying errors and differential reproductive success of the different replicators, you basically have all the conditions set for evolutionary processes to do their job. Add to that deep geological timescales and once more, no faith is required to see how we can arrive at our current biodiversity. And you're yet to explain how these replicators happened to be surrounded by an already-complex cell membrane. How convenient that primordial DNA materials eventually made a membrane for its own protection. These molecules are really intelligent. Your explanative need for an intelligent designer is only a relflection of you lack of faith in the intellectual abilities of man . Its really strange how the TOE attempts to show and what is expected to be a gradual positive development of man, yet it fails to explain man's downward moral slide. Instead of seeing humans reaching that state of perfection as his genetic make up improves, as the theory should be predicting, it is instead showing man sliding downwards, socially and morally. The Bible from the very outset shows perfectly-created humans that sinned and came short of their Creator's glory which explains the downward trend of human values. The TOE doesn't have a clue as to whats going on. If anything it has created the social delemma facing us. The TOE has not provided the real answers. It has attempted to say where he came from, but has not been able to say why we are what we are today, and certainly it lacks the capacity to guide us for the future. Trust me only the bible can give the asnwers for human confusion and endless evil. No amount of scientic discoveries and research can sway the heart of man. Only the love of a Creator-God can see the heart of mankind and bring us to the point where we see the need to humble ourselves and accept that our knowledge is folly when compared to the abounding wisdom of God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
@ nferyn @ Bobbyaf
It's not easy to cram such a complex subject matter into a few one-liners, especially for a non specialist such as myself. I will try anyway: Why should truth be a complex thing? No reason. It just is, you cannot make reality bend to your wishes. I will consider life to be the ability of a self-organising biological system to reproduce and persists, whereby usable energy into the system is targeted at that persistence and/or reproduction And I guess that self-organizing biological system had to have started with biomolecules, right? You make it sound as if these bio-molecules just happened to come together by chance. Where did these bio-molecules come from? Where did the atomic structure for these bio-molecules come from? All atoms and molecules are very structured. They had to have been designed knowing what we are finding out about these mysterious elements. 1. Simple natural processes can lead to structure and self-organisation if we have an input of usable energy. We have an input of usable energy, it's called solar energy. 2. There is no reason to assume design in chemical compounds. That's just our hyper-active human agency detector at work. We see agency in all kinds of things where none exists. 3. Chance + time lead to outcomes that are at first sight very unlikely. Try throwing dice, if you continue long enough, you'll eventually hit a string of 6 sixes in a row. It's not because hitting 6 sixes in a row is an unlikely event that it cannot happen. Considering that the earth is fourpointfive billion years old, unlikely events were bound to happen 4. If you assume a designer to explain order and complexity, then the designer (who necessarily is even more complex) still needs explaining. The assumption of a designer only makes things more complicated and solves no problems. It flies in the face of Ockham's Razor. * complex organic molecules being created by natural processes similar to the ones existing on the early earth has been observed
* self organisation and the emergence of complexity in open thermodynamic systems (such as the earth) has been observed
* the chance that self-replicating biological compounds emerge under early earth conditions (both time wise and chemical composition wise) is far from negligable. The process has been replicated under laboratory conditions Yet not one of these lab experiments have produced life as yet have they? Why has man with all this knowledge from the past not been able to produce life in the form of a bacteria? A single cellular organism. Depends on your definition of life (but you'll probably shift goalposts anyway if a specific definition doesn't agree with your starting assumptions). Bacteria are already quite complex lifeforms in their own right. If man were to recreate bacteria, he would need several thousands of years, if not millions of years. The discovery of DNA is only a few decades old. This is an idiotic argument that shows your lack of understanding of evolutionary processes. This means that belief in the emergence of the first replicators on earth does not require any faith at all. Quite the opposite! Compare the structure and design of humans. Our ability to think and reason. Are you asking us to accept that humans came from a single-cellular life form, that gradually with time developed into complex creatures? You must be kidding. No. All the evidence points in the direction of common descent. The only thing that's happening is that you discard the evidence because it does not comply to your faith. This is not how science works. Now, once you have self-replicating organical compounds, the possibility to have copying errors and differential reproductive success of the different replicators, you basically have all the conditions set for evolutionary processes to do their job. Add to that deep geological timescales and once more, no faith is required to see how we can arrive at our current biodiversity. And you're yet to explain how these replicators happened to be surrounded by an already-complex cell membrane. 1. The first replicators did not have a complex cell membrane 2. Even if they had, why would I need to explain it. I have a credible, yet unfalsified explanation on how they can come into existence. You on the other hand have nothing (except for an already falsified origin story). How convenient that primordial DNA materials eventually made a membrane for its own protection. These molecules are really intelligent.
1. The first replicators were not DNA based. DNA is a later adaptation. 2. Explain how these molecules exhibit intelligence. Maybe you can start by defining intelligence Your explanative need for an intelligent designer is only a relflection of you lack of faith in the intellectual abilities of man Its really strange how the TOE attempts to show and what is expected to be a gradual positive development of man, yet it fails to explain man's downward moral slide. Instead of seeing humans reaching that state of perfection as his genetic make up improves, as the theory should be predicting, it is instead showing man sliding downwards, socially and morally. 1. The TOE does not imply a a gradual rise in complexity. There is no ladder from the simple to the more complex with man at the pinnacle. Your understanding of the TOE is flawed 2. Man does not slide downwards socially and morally. Man has never been more moral in his history than today. Or maybe you consider mass starvation, mass genocide, mass displacements and subjugation and widespread slavery evidence of a higher morality? The Bible from the very outset shows perfectly-created humans that sinned and came short of their Creator's glory which explains the downward trend of human values. The TOE doesn't have a clue as to whats going on. If anything it has created the social delemma facing us. The TOE has not provided the real answers. It has attempted to say where he came from, but has not been able to say why we are what we are today, and certainly it lacks the capacity to guide us for the future.
1. The TOE is only a scientific explanation for our biodiversity and biological makeup, nothing more 2. The Bible may very well be consistent explanatory framework and a guide for humans, but it is simply false. It is factually incorrect, incoherent and self-contradictory. I don't doubt your abilities to explain away all of this, but that doesn't make it anything more than a self-containing, self-supporting intellectual bubble that does not have any external relevancy. The Bible only makes sense if you already believe in it. Trust me only the bible can give the asnwers for human confusion and endless evil. So we have seen for the past 2 millenia. Excellent track record. No amount of scientic discoveries and research can sway the heart of man.
Anti-intellectualism at it's best Only the love of a Creator-God can see the heart of mankind and bring us to the point where we see the need to humble ourselves and accept that our knowledge is folly when compared to the abounding wisdom of God.
Show me the evidence for your as of yet imaginary being. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
@ nferynShow me the evidence for your as of yet imaginary being. Next time peer through a powerful telescope and take a good look. You'll see that: "the heavens declare God's glory, " It was He who stretched the heavens with the command of His word. By simply speaking the heavens came into being and stood fast. It is He who holds your breath. Besides the physical evidences, there is the prophetic evidences from His word. Name a prediction from the bible that hasn't been fulfilled or is being fulfilled? Probably if you took time to meditate on God's word you'D see for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oracle (m)
|
@ nferyn
Next time peer through a powerful telescope and take a good look. You'll see that:
"the heavens declare God's glory, " It was He who stretched the heavens with the command of His word. By simply speaking the heavens came into being and stood fast. It is He who holds your breath.
Besides the physical evidences, there is the prophetic evidences from His word. Name a prediction from the bible that hasn't been fulfilled or is being fulfilled?
Probably if you took time to meditate on God's word you'D see for yourself.
word abeg tell them |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
@ nferynShow me the evidence for your as of yet imaginary being. Next time peer through a powerful telescope and take a good look. You'll see that: "the heavens declare God's glory, " It was He who stretched the heavens with the command of His word. By simply speaking the heavens came into being and stood fast. It is He who holds your breath. Your evidentiary standards are quite low Besides the physical evidences,
There are none there is the prophetic evidences from His word. Name a prediction from the bible that hasn't been fulfilled or is being fulfilled?
Just a few things concerning the return of Jesus: What the Bible says about the End of the World
The end will come within the lifetime of Jesus's listeners.
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Matthew16:28
"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:27
"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." -- Matthew 23:36
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -- Matthew 24:34
"Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Matthew 26:64
"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." -- Mark 9:1
"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." -- Mark 13:30
"And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Mark 14:62
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:32
"Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" -- John 21:22
The end will come within the lifetime of the the New Testament authors.
"Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ , that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:7-8
"But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none." -- 1 Corinthians 7:29
"That ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. -- Philippians 1:10
"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." -- 1 Thessalonians 4:17
"I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:23
"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, " -- Hebrews 1:2
"But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." -- Hebrews 9:26
"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." -- 1 Peter 1:20
"But the end of all things is at hand." -- 1 Peter 4:7
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." -- 1 John 2:18
The end will come soon. (Within a couple thousand years or so.)
"The Lord is at hand." -- Philippians 4:5
"For the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." -- James 5:8
"For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry." -- Hebrews 10:37
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass. -- Revelation 1:1
"The time is at hand." -- Revelation 1:3
"Behold, I come quickly." -- Revelation 3:11, 22:7, 22:12
"Surely I come quickly." -- Revelation 22:20 Probably if you took time to meditate on God's word you'D see for yourself.
Assuming that there is a God, how do you know that the Bible is his word? Be aware that belief does not equal knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
I suppose there's no harm in responding to apologetics that has strayed into evo/creation territory. @ nferyn
Next time peer through a powerful telescope and take a good look. You'll see that:
"the heavens declare God's glory, " It was He who stretched the heavens with the command of His word. By simply speaking the heavens came into being and stood fast. It is He who holds your breath. No, what you see isn't space "declaring the Glory of God", and you definitely don't see the "heavens standing fast" (remember the Universe expanding - see your Bing Bang theory manuals for more information). What we actually see through a telescope, is a smidgen (and what a smidgen) of a vast - and you have no idea how vast - Universe. No Gods, no fairies, no monsters, and defiitely not a peep, or even a whisper, from the "declaring heavens". Besides the physical evidences, there is the prophetic evidences from His word. Name a prediction from the bible that hasn't been fulfilled or is being fulfilled? Disregarding the deceptive (in my opinion) poor attempts to retroactively apply events to alledged, and clearly ambiguous "prophcies" in the Bible (in fact sometimes the "prophecy was fulfilled" crowd even rope in words and statements that clearly weren't intended to be interpreted as prophetic), I'll see your challenge. Here's one: Genesis 15:4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.Pretty self-evident without retorting ad-hoc and retroactive attempts to shoe horn. Abraham's descendants (especially through Isaac) definitely aren't that numerous. Here are a couple, which I and many Jewish scholars are certain were not intended to be read as messianic prophecies, but Christians have decided they are indeed messianic, so let's humour them: Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (By the way, virgin in the original context didn't mean unsexed, untouched etc, it meant maiden; but hey, if the entire thing can be taken out of context to look "messianic", who cares about somehing so trivial). Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. There you go, three for the price of one. Probably if you took time to meditate on God's word you'D see for yourself.
God's word? See what? |
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
No, what you see isn't space "declaring the Glory of God", and you definitely don't see the "heavens standing fast" (remember the Universe expanding - see your Bing Bang theory manuals for more information). Just as a reminder the word "fast" in his context doesn't mean static. It means stable. In other words the universe isn't breaking up or falling apart. Besides, who is talking about space? What we actually see through a telescope, is a smidgen (and what a smidgen) of a vast - and you have no idea how vast - Universe. No Gods, no fairies, no monsters, and defiitely not a peep, or even a whisper, from the "declaring heavens". I know how vast this universe is, but the photoshots say it all. Just more recently more planets were discovered in our galaxy. Only goes to show there is more surprise to come. Disregarding the deceptive (in my opinion) poor attempts to retroactively apply events to alledged, and clearly ambiguous "prophcies" in the Bible (in fact sometimes the "prophecy was fulfilled" crowd even rope in words and statements that clearly weren't intended to be interpreted as prophetic), I'll see your challenge. Really now? Here's one:
Genesis 15:4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
Pretty self-evident without retorting ad-hoc and retroactive attempts to shoe horn. Abraham's descendants (especially through Isaac) definitely aren't that numerous. Well it depends on how one defines descendants. According to Paul the apostle all who accept Christ are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promse made to Abraham. God in His fore knowledge knew about a spiritual family that would not just be confined to a literal race, but to all those who will be saved in God's kingdom. Good attempt anyway! Here are a couple, which I and many Jewish scholars are certain were not intended to be read as messianic prophecies, but Christians have decided they are indeed messianic, so let's humour them:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (By the way, virgin in the original context didn't mean unsexed, untouched etc, it meant maiden; but hey, if the entire thing can be taken out of context to look "messianic", who cares about somehing so trivial). Is that all you have to say about the prophecy? Believe what you desire, but I believe otherwise. Mary was untouched sexually and hence was a virgin. If she weren't then she would have had children before having Jesus. Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
There you go, three for the price of one. I could be wrong but you're saying based on what you understand of the record of Jesus as found in the NT that He wasn't really silent after all during His crucifixion, yet the prophecy said He would have been. The expression used in Isaiah isn't dwelling so much on whether or not Jesus wouldn't speak, but rather its focus was on He not resisting His crucifixion. It also means that Christ never spoke in order to defend Himself. So the expression "openeth not His mouth" more dwelt on his lack of vocal defence. In either case you haven't disproved anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
Back to the TOE.
There can be no sense in teaching that dead chemicals came to life and formed life over time. Besides the uniformistic view that everything remains constant over a long time period wouldn't hold true in the case of Oxygen being used by living cells today as a natural part of their body's chemical processes.
If early life in the form of cells according to the TOE, could have existed with out oxygen then why not discontinue with it today?
Basic biochemistry of which I am knowledgable specifies that oxygen as a free radical reacts with all bio-molecules. That is why the advocates came up with this grand idea that the early earth's atmosphere had no oxygen surrounding it. Of course how could a young earth have protected itself and its life forms, if there were no protetion from the UV radiation coming from the Sun, via the Ozone layer.
The bible solves that problem when it said that God put everything in place during His creation. All life forms had their own built in protection, although the newly created earth and its atmosphere posed no problem as such.
There was never any evidence from the start that the earth in earlier times had no oxygen. All these statements from the advocates of the TOE are mere conjecture. In fact there are geological evidences that show unquestionably, that the earth as far back as can be dated, based on limestone formation, and the presence of ferrous iron found in foundation rocks, proves their conjecture false.
There ia a lot more to come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
Back to the TOE.
Or rather your strawman version thereof. There can be no sense in teaching that dead chemicals came to life and formed life over time.
Why not? That's what happened, whether you introduce God as explanatory factor or simply natural processes. You seem to have a knack for arguments from personal incredulity. Besides the uniformistic view that everything remains constant over a long time period
Care to expand that one. I have no idea what you mean with uniformistic view and what it's scientific basis may be. wouldn't hold true in the case of Oxygen being used by living cells today as a natural part of their body's chemical processes.
Oxidation is an process that releases usable energy. Doesn't seem unnatural that it was selected for. Why can't it be part of a body's chemical processes? Actually the release of usable energy through oxidation is carried out in the mitochondria for most species. These mitochondria are bacterial invaders that moved beyond an ordinary symbiotic relationship to become part of our anabolism. Maybe you can read the work of Margulis to inform yourself. If early life in the form of cells according to the TOE, could have existed with out oxygen then why not discontinue with it today?
Simple, only after the development of photosynthesis and the release of sufficient levels of oxygen in the atmosphere co you have the conditions for the use of oxidation as mechanism for the release of usable energy. As aerobic energy processes are far less damaging than anaerobic processes, it's only natural that aerobic processes get selected for. Doesn't mean that anaerobic processes are no longer available, they usually end up as backup processes. just look up the ATP cycle and you'll know what I'm talking about. Basic biochemistry of which I am knowledgable specifies that oxygen as a free radical reacts with all bio-molecules.
If you compare the damage caused by anaerobic processes and more importantly the overall energy efficiency of aerobic processes compared to anaerobic processes, then using oxidation seems to be a fair trade-off, after all, organisms should maximise reproduction, not lifespan. Once more, you really are fond of arguments from personal incredulity. That is why the advocates came up with this grand idea that the early earth's atmosphere had no oxygen surrounding it.
Far less than today at least. Free oxygen in the atmosphere is mainly there because of photosynthesis. Of course how could a young earth have protected itself and its life forms, if there were no protetion from the UV radiation coming from the Sun, via the Ozone layer.
- the young earth didn't need to protect itself from UV radiation. Rock does not need protection from UV radiation - the early life forms were very different from today's, what makes you assume that there was a need for protection in the first place. Biochemical decay caused by radiation could have increased the mutation rate and reduce the copying fidelity of the replicators ensuring a faster paced evolution. What's your point? The bible solves that problem when it said that God put everything in place during His creation.
For which there is no evidence. None, nada, zilch. All life forms had their own built in protection, although the newly created earth and its atmosphere posed no problem as such.
Obviously not. In self-contained phantasy stories those kind of problems are non-existent. There was never any evidence from the start that the earth in earlier times had no oxygen.
Wich is a strawman statement only a creationist can make. Who ever said there was no oxygen on the earth? All these statements from the advocates of the TOE are mere conjecture.
The only ones I've seen making these statements are misguided creationists In fact there are geological evidences that show unquestionably, that the earth as far back as can be dated, based on limestone formation, and the presence of ferrous iron found in foundation rocks, proves their conjecture false.
Strawman. Ellaborate your reasoning and provide sources for it. Currently it means very little. There ia a lot more to come.
Can't wait |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
Just as a reminder the word "fast" in his context doesn't mean static. It means stable. In other words the universe isn't breaking up or falling apart. Besides, who is talking about space? But if the Universe was static, "fast" would have meant "static"; anybody willing to wager on the fact "fast" meant "static" when the Universe was [believed to be] static? By the way, you can't have the telescopes and the Universe, without space I know how vast this universe is, but the photoshots say it all. Just more recently more planets were discovered in our galaxy. Only goes to show there is more surprise to come. The Universe is vaster than the human mind can imagine, and oh yeas there's bound to be more surprises - maybe extraterrestial life? Really now? Clearly. Well it depends on how one defines descendants. According to Paul the apostle all who accept Christ are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promse made to Abraham. God in His fore knowledge knew about a spiritual family that would not just be confined to a literal race, but to all those who will be saved in God's kingdom.
Good attempt anyway! Holy ad-hocery batman! "Say Johnny, when is a "prophecy" actually meant to be taken not quite so literally, and meant only in the spiritual sense?" Why that'D be when it isn't being fulfilled KAG. In any case, let's accept your reformed explanation of what should have been a straight forward prophecy (at least for now). The number of Christians both living and dead, would be no more than 5 billion - and that's being extremely generous. Well short of the intended target, I'm sure you'll agree. Is that all you have to say about the prophecy? Believe what you desire, but I believe otherwise. Mary was untouched sexually and hence was a virgin. If she weren't then she would have had children before having Jesus. Well, I just assumed it was self explanatory. I'll make it clearer: Luke 2:21 "his name was called JESUS" Isaiah 7:14 "and shall call his name Immanuel." I could be wrong but you're saying based on what you understand of the record of Jesus as found in the NT that He wasn't really silent after all during His crucifixion, yet the prophecy said He would have been. The expression used in Isaiah isn't dwelling so much on whether or not Jesus wouldn't speak, but rather its focus was on He not resisting His crucifixion. It also means that Christ never spoke in order to defend Himself. So the expression "openeth not His mouth" more dwelt on his lack of vocal defence. I'll post the verse again: Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. John 18:34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.In either case you haven't disproved anything. If anything, it has become abundantly clear that Biblical prophecies apologists are no different from other prophecy apologists hacks (see Nostradamus for example). Wiggle here, slide some letters over there, multiply by 1, now add 57, and hey presto it fits. See the prophecy was right all along! |
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
hey Kag how you interpret prophecy is your business, but I see things differently, ok? With that said I won't bicker about what means what or not.
The point is the bible's clear prophecies are coming to pass and some have already come to pass. How you and I see their fulfillment is irrelivant to our discussion of the TOE.
My reasons for using the bible as reference was based on Nferyn's comments previously. If I could show you the truths of the bible, then the God of the bible would be seen as true also.
To try and twist bible interpretation to make it look un-reliable or inconsistent just won't work, because a secular mind cannot understand the things of God. No insult intended, just plain old facts."Spiritual things are spiritually discerned"
My concerns with the TOE is its inconsistencies. Theyhave been so many variants to the theory its not funny. Its almost as if they are feeling as they go along.
The uniformist approach just doesn't hold based on what the same science has discovered. So its one body of science that is militating against the other body of science. They are too many loopholes in all this fancy-sounding theories, It all words with no meaning.
The bible if its rightly understood and appreciated will, and can do far more for the human mind and body than any knowledge of science is concerned, and moreso the TTOE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
hey Kag how you interpret prophecy is your business, but I see things differently, ok? With that said I won't bicker about what means what or not. Actually it's the business of many Christian leaders. The point is the bible's clear prophecies are coming to pass and some have already come to pass. You mean like, oh tehre will be wars, and *ahem* earthquakes somewhere in the world - very clear indeed. How you and I see their fulfillment is irrelivant to our discussion of the TOE. Well, in a sense it's a worthy distraction from your butchery of the ToE. I mean - and I mean this in the nicest of ways - your understanding of biblical prophecies can't certainly be worse than your understanding of the ToE. My reasons for using the bible as reference was based on Nferyn's comments previously. If I could show you the truths of the bible, then the God of the bible would be seen as true also. Although the logic in that statement isn't sound, it appears you've failed in that attempt anyway. To try and twist bible interpretation to make it look un-reliable or inconsistent just won't work, because a secular mind cannot understand the things of God. No insult intended, just plain old facts."Spiritual things are spiritually discerned" I'm sorry, twist? Ironic doesn't even begin to cover it. I was only going by the words written, and to try to claim the reason I have been able to point out your alledged prophecies fall well short of fulfillment, is because I don't belong to some secret club (a club it seems, if this things are anything to go by, that asks for logic to be crucified on the alter of reason). It would be quite funny, if it wasn't so sad. P.S. I was once a Christian, and it read the same way then too. My concerns with the TOE is its inconsistencies. Theyhave been so many variants to the theory its not funny. Its almost as if they are feeling as they go along. Then point out the inconsistencies, do't go babbling [wrongly too] about the Big Bang theory, or on abiogenesis. Also, while there's nothing wrong with science correcting itself, I must ask that you provide some evidence for the "many variants to the theory". The only other variant I'm aware of, is the ol' Lamarkian evolution, and that was falsified/superceded by Darwin's theory. The uniformist approach just doesn't hold based on what the same science has discovered. So its one body of science that is militating against the other body of science. They are too many loopholes in all this fancy-sounding theories, It all words with no meaning. Uniformist approach? Which one? Loopholes? Elucidate. The bible if its rightly understood and appreciated will, and can do far more for the human mind and body than any knowledge of science is concerned, and moreso the TTOE.
I'm sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
@ nferyn Or rather your strawman version thereof. I plead my 5th amendment. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
There can be no sense in teaching that dead chemicals came to life and formed life over time. Why not? That's what happened, whether you introduce God as explanatory factor or simply natural processes. You seem to have a knack for arguments from personal incredulity. Dead chemicals cannot make life, period. Its just not natural. If you desire to believe that go ahead! Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
Besides the uniformistic view that everything remains constant over a long time periodCare to expand that one. I have no idea what you mean with uniformistic view and what it's scientific basis may be. I am not surprised you wouldn't care to explain, or pretend to not know about the uniformist idea, so you resorted to me. I can only depend on what you guys say among yourselves. So if I use your own science against you, then why are you surprised? The iniformistic view basd on what I have read says that all processes remain the same over long periods of time. The early earth it is conviniently believed had no oxygen, because those advocates knew that self-assembling molecules, and especially the biomolecules couldn't survive in oxygen at all. Only God knows how molecules could self assemble anyway, but that is another matter. I am saying that geological evidence point to an oxidizing atmosphere, as indicated by the foundation rocks possessing oxidised ferrous iron, and also the vast amount of limestone present, together with large amounts of mineral distribution in sedimentary rocks. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
wouldn't hold true in the case of Oxygen being used by living cells today as a natural part of their body's chemical processes.Oxidation is an process that releases usable energy. Doesn't seem unnatural that it was selected for. Why can't it be part of a body's chemical processes? Actually the release of usable energy through oxidation is carried out in the mitochondria for most species. These mitochondria are bacterial invaders that moved beyond an ordinary symbiotic relationship to become part of our anabolism. Maybe you can read the work of Margulis to inform yourself. That wasn't the point I made. I was referring to the fact that because processes are supposed to continue based on the uniformistic view, then the fact that the earth started out without oxygen in relation to lifeforms, then how is it now we find that animals cannot survive with out it. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
If early life in the form of cells according to the TOE, could have existed with out oxygen then why not discontinue with it today? Simple, only after the development of photosynthesis and the release of sufficient levels of oxygen in the atmosphere co you have the conditions for the use of oxidation as mechanism for the release of usable energy. As aerobic energy processes are far less damaging than anaerobic processes, it's only natural that aerobic processes get selected for. Doesn't mean that anaerobic processes are no longer available, they usually end up as backup processes. just look up the ATP cycle and you'll know what I'm talking about. So somehow the plants found a way to make oxygen without oxygen? If my memory serves me right, photosynthesis is the process involving plants using CO2, energy, etc; to make O2 and food, right. What is CO2 made up of? Isn't it a combination of O2 and carbon? How can there be photosynthesis without CO2, and if CO2 is needed then where how did the C find the O2 to react with, if there were no O2 present? Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
Basic biochemistry of which I am knowledgable specifies that oxygen as a free radical reacts with all bio-molecules.If you compare the damage caused by anaerobic processes and more importantly the overall energy efficiency of aerobic processes compared to anaerobic processes, then using oxidation seems to be a fair trade-off, after all, organisms should maximise reproduction, not lifespan. Once more, you really are fond of arguments from personal incredulity. Thats why God made everything perfectly from the beginning. He knew that sin would have caused all this change naturally, including how dangerous oxygen would become as a free radical. Hence all cells were made with outer membranes, and the organelles had inner membranes so as to provide future protection from all free radicals. All plants have in-built protection called carotenoids, or anti-oxidants, that when consumed by humans prolong life. In the beginning is it surprising that God in His wisdiom placed mankind on a plant diet? Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
That is why the advocates came up with this grand idea that the early earth's atmosphere had no oxygen surrounding it.Far less than today at least. Free oxygen in the atmosphere is mainly there because of photosynthesis.
Quote from: This is absurd an argument to say the least. Co2 cannot exist without Oxygen my friend. For plants to use Co2 there has to be a reaction betwen C and O, before you can have Co2. How else could thee have been photosynthesis? Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
Of course how could a young earth have protected itself and its life forms, if there were no protetion from the UV radiation coming from the Sun, via the Ozone layer. - the young earth didn't need to protect itself from UV radiation. Rock does not need protection from UV radiation
- the early life forms were very different from today's, what makes you assume that there was a need for protection in the first place. Biochemical decay caused by radiation could have increased the mutation rate and reduce the copying fidelity of the replicators ensuring a faster paced evolution. What's your point? I didn't say rocks needed protection. I said earth and its lifeforms. You say lifeforms were different, but obviously they were more fragile than now seeing the TOE implies gradual perfection. Its logical then that whatever danger UV light poses now it posed a bigger problem then. I am certain the sun hasn't become less intense has it? If there were no ozone layers to protect the young earth then, then why do we need it now? Why is it that scientists are crying out for us to protect the ozone layer? Without an ozone layer the earth would have fried, including its lifeforms. If heat waves are killing people today then what about life in its early stages then? The theory doesn't hold. Its senseless. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
The bible solves that problem when it said that God put everything in place during His creation. For which there is no evidence. None, nada, zilch. You will soon see. Prepare to met thy Creator God soon. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
All life forms had their own built in protection, although the newly created earth and its atmosphere posed no problem as such. Obviously not. In self-contained phantasy stories those kind of problems are non-existent. Soon when the Creator God of the universe will re-create this world, where as it was in the beginning it shall be in the end. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
There was never any evidence from the start that the earth in earlier times had no oxygen. Wich is a strawman statement only a creationist can make. Who ever said there was no oxygen on the earth? So why all the explanations above? wasn't it apart of the teaching that the early earth had no oxygen in its atmosphere? Familiar with the term reducing atmosphere? Its either the O2 is so low or there is none at all, and/or the only gases present are reducing gases. H2 and methane etc; all of which you're familair with. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
In fact there are geological evidences that show unquestionably, that the earth as far back as can be dated, based on limestone formation, and the presence of ferrous iron found in foundation rocks, proves their conjecture false. Strawman. Ellaborate your reasoning and provide sources for it. Currently it means very little. Why should I when the geologists have already elaborated. There ia a lot more to come. I am not finished with you as yet. I am taking it piece by piece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
I'm sure Nferyn will be along to add his two cents, but in the meantime, @ nferyn
Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
There can be no sense in teaching that dead chemicals came to life and formed life over time.
Dead chemicals cannot make life, period. Its just not natural. If you desire to believe that go ahead! In a sense we the "living" are made up of dead chemicals, but I digress. The hypotheses in Abiogenesis try to explain how the inanimate can become "animate, and how with time what we call "life" may have eventually arisen. I think the latest (and forgive me, but I haven't been keping up with the whole abiogeesis scene, so I may be wrong) finding is the TNA, which preceded the RNA. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
Besides the uniformistic view that everything remains constant over a long time period
I am not surprised you wouldn't care to explain, or pretend to not know about the uniformist idea, so you resorted to me. I can only depend on what you guys say among yourselves. So if I use your own science against you, then why are you surprised? The iniformistic view basd on what I have read says that all processes remain the same over long periods of time. The early earth it is conviniently believed had no oxygen, because those advocates knew that self-assembling molecules, and especially the biomolecules couldn't survive in oxygen at all. Only God knows how molecules could self assemble anyway, but that is another matter. I am saying that geological evidence point to an oxidizing atmosphere, as indicated by the foundation rocks possessing oxidised ferrous iron, and also the vast amount of limestone present, together with large amounts of mineral distribution in sedimentary rocks. Making up things, are we? I'm not surprised Nferyn had no idea what you were talking about. As far as I'm aware, "Uniformism" isn't that things don't change, but that established laws - like for example the laws of physics - don't just change on a whim. Proper and tangible evidence is needed to show differences in the past, and there are several for the fact the Earth had less oxygen. Here's one I just pulled from google: http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=280Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
If early life in the form of cells according to the TOE, could have existed with out oxygen then why not discontinue with it today? So somehow the plants found a way to make oxygen without oxygen? If my memory serves me right, photosynthesis is the process involving plants using CO2, energy, etc; to make O2 and food, right. What is CO2 made up of? Isn't it a combination of O2 and carbon? How can there be photosynthesis without CO2, and if CO2 is needed then where how did the C find the O2 to react with, if there were no O2 present? Simple answer (to a question that doesn't make much sense; owing largely to the whole free oxygen thing, not knowing about carbon, and anaerobic effect to name but a few - I mean we are all over the place here, from evolution to the atmosphere of the Earth to carbondioxide formation), organisms that harness energy from the Sun through photosynthesis have evolved to their present form. Long answer, if you can afford it, or you are a University member: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135212;jsessionid=iguM60J5b9U7G4tk80?cookieSet=1&journalCode=arplantQuote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
Basic biochemistry of which I am knowledgable specifies that oxygen as a free radical reacts with all bio-molecules.
Thats why God made everything perfectly from the beginning. He knew that sin would have caused all this change naturally, including how dangerous oxygen would become as a free radical. Hence all cells were made with outer membranes, and the organelles had inner membranes so as to provide future protection from all free radicals. All plants have in-built protection called carotenoids, or anti-oxidants, that when consumed by humans prolong life. In the beginning is it surprising that God in His wisdiom placed mankind on a plant diet? What? No seriously, sin caused what? I'm pretty much speechless at this point. From you conflating less oxygen (as in free oxygen) with absolutely no oxygen to more or less saying when you die you'll see I was right, nothing else needs to be said on the rest. Go figure. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
I guess I'll just wait on Nferyn to respond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
I guess I'll just wait on Nferyn to respond. Well while you are waiting, you may want to think of reading up on the ToE, because I just realised that you've hit on everything (okay exaggerating, you haven't hit on everything, but you get the idea) BUT the theory of evolution. From the Big Bang to abiogenesis to oxygen, and yet you insist the ToE has loopholes and is wrong, without actually touching on it. Most bizarre |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
There can be no sense in teaching that dead chemicals came to life and formed life over time. Why not? That's what happened, whether you introduce God as explanatory factor or simply natural processes. You seem to have a knack for arguments from personal incredulity. Dead chemicals cannot make life, period. Its just not natural. If you desire to believe that go ahead! It actually happens all the time. You ingest food (inorganic and organic compounds), food gets transform to living cells. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
Besides the uniformistic view that everything remains constant over a long time periodCare to expand that one. I have no idea what you mean with uniformistic view and what it's scientific basis may be. I am not surprised you wouldn't care to explain, or pretend to not know about the uniformist idea, so you resorted to me. I can only depend on what you guys say among yourselves. So if I use your own science against you, then why are you surprised? The iniformistic view basd on what I have read says that all processes remain the same over long periods of time. Never heard that one. Maybe you misunderstood the author(s). Can you give the source? Anyway, if you're referring to geological processes, I really don't see how that supports your argument. Which processes should have changed in your view to enable what exactly? The early earth it is conviniently believed had no oxygen, because those advocates knew that self-assembling molecules, and especially the biomolecules couldn't survive in oxygen at all. There is plenty of marine life who's metabolic processes don't rely on oxygen at all. Only Eukarya rely heavily on oxygen based processes for release of available energy. Only God knows how molecules could self assemble anyway, but that is another matter. I am saying that geological evidence point to an oxidizing atmosphere, as indicated by the foundation rocks possessing oxidised ferrous iron, and also the vast amount of limestone present, together with large amounts of mineral distribution in sedimentary rocks.
Spurious claims. The geological evidence does not point to an oxidising atmosphere. 1. There is a variety of evidence that the early atmosphere did not have significant oxygen (Turner 1981).
* Banded iron formations are layers of hematite (Fe2O3) and other iron oxides deposited in the ocean 2.5 to 1.8 billion years ago. The conventional interpretation is that oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere for the first time in significant quantities beginning about 2.5 billion years ago when photosynthesis evolved. This caused the free iron dissolved in the ocean water to oxidize and precipitate. Thus, the banded iron formations mark the transition from an early earth with little free oxygen and much dissolved iron in water to present conditions with lots of free oxygen and little dissolved iron.
* In rocks older than the banded iron formations, uranite and pyrite exist as detrital grains, or sedimentary grains that were rolling around in stream beds and beaches. These minerals are not stable for long periods in the present high-oxygen conditions.
* "Red beds," which are terrestrial sediments with lots of iron oxides, need an oxygen atmosphere to form. They are not found in rocks older than about 2.3 billion years, but they become increasingly common afterward.
* Sulfur isotope signatures of ancient sediments show that oxidative weathering was very low 2.4 billion years ago (Farquhar et al. 2000).
The dominant scientific view is that the early atmosphere had 0.1 percent oxygen or less (Copley 2001).
2. Free oxygen in the atmosphere today is mainly the result of photosynthesis. Before photosynthetic plants and bacteria appeared, we would expect little oxygen in the atmosphere for lack of a source. The oldest fossils (over a billion years older than the transition to an oxygen atmosphere) were bacteria; we do not find fossils of fish, clams, or other organisms that need oxygen in the oldest sediments. (from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035_1.html)Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
wouldn't hold true in the case of Oxygen being used by living cells today as a natural part of their body's chemical processes.Oxidation is an process that releases usable energy. Doesn't seem unnatural that it was selected for. Why can't it be part of a body's chemical processes? Actually the release of usable energy through oxidation is carried out in the mitochondria for most species. These mitochondria are bacterial invaders that moved beyond an ordinary symbiotic relationship to become part of our anabolism. Maybe you can read the work of Margulis to inform yourself. That wasn't the point I made. I was referring to the fact that because processes are supposed to continue based on the uniformistic view, then the fact that the earth started out without oxygen in relation to lifeforms, then how is it now we find that animals cannot survive with out it. You're kidding aren't you? Since when do geological rules apply to biology? Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
If early life in the form of cells according to the TOE, could have existed with out oxygen then why not discontinue with it today? Simple, only after the development of photosynthesis and the release of sufficient levels of oxygen in the atmosphere co you have the conditions for the use of oxidation as mechanism for the release of usable energy. As aerobic energy processes are far less damaging than anaerobic processes, it's only natural that aerobic processes get selected for. Doesn't mean that anaerobic processes are no longer available, they usually end up as backup processes. just look up the ATP cycle and you'll know what I'm talking about. So somehow the plants found a way to make oxygen without oxygen? If my memory serves me right, photosynthesis is the process involving plants using CO2, energy, etc; to make O2 and food, right. What is CO2 made up of? Isn't it a combination of O2 and carbon? How can there be photosynthesis without CO2, and if CO2 is needed then where how did the C find the O2 to react with, if there were no O2 present? Plenty of Carbon and Oxygen available in a marine environment. Green algae still don't need an oxygenated athmosphere to do their tricks. Oxygen in their watery environment is sufficient. Your point is mute. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
Basic biochemistry of which I am knowledgable specifies that oxygen as a free radical reacts with all bio-molecules.If you compare the damage caused by anaerobic processes and more importantly the overall energy efficiency of aerobic processes compared to anaerobic processes, then using oxidation seems to be a fair trade-off, after all, organisms should maximise reproduction, not lifespan. Once more, you really are fond of arguments from personal incredulity. Thats why God made everything perfectly from the beginning. He knew that sin would have caused all this change naturally, including how dangerous oxygen would become as a free radical. Hence all cells were made with outer membranes, and the organelles had inner membranes so as to provide future protection from all free radicals. All plants have in-built protection called carotenoids, or anti-oxidants, that when consumed by humans prolong life. In the beginning is it surprising that God in His wisdiom placed mankind on a plant diet? Deus ex machina. Explains everything and nothing at the same time. If you cannot corner an oponent using arguments, or more precisely when your objections have proven to be irrelevant, just introduce another entity that is unfalsifiable. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
That is why the advocates came up with this grand idea that the early earth's atmosphere had no oxygen surrounding it. Far less than today at least. Free oxygen in the atmosphere is mainly there because of photosynthesis. This is absurd an argument to say the least. Co2 cannot exist without Oxygen my friend. For plants to use Co2 there has to be a reaction betwen C and O, before you can have Co2. How else could thee have been photosynthesis? And in your world, the only possible available oxygen is the O2 in the atmosphere and the only available CO2 is the CO2 in the atmosphere, even for photosynthetic bacteria (of whom the chloroplasts descend) that have no access to it? Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
Of course how could a young earth have protected itself and its life forms, if there were no protetion from the UV radiation coming from the Sun, via the Ozone layer. - the young earth didn't need to protect itself from UV radiation. Rock does not need protection from UV radiation
- the early life forms were very different from today's, what makes you assume that there was a need for protection in the first place. Biochemical decay caused by radiation could have increased the mutation rate and reduce the copying fidelity of the replicators ensuring a faster paced evolution. What's your point? I didn't say rocks needed protection. I said earth and its lifeforms. You say lifeforms were different, but obviously they were more fragile than now seeing the TOE implies gradual perfection. Its logical then that whatever danger UV light poses now it posed a bigger problem then. How deep does the dangerous UV radiation penetrate in the marine environment where early life was situated? Maybe a thick layer of water protects cells better than a tiny membrane? I will repeat myself: increased radiation causes reduced copying fidelity causes a faster pace of evolution. Whether the radiation did or did not affect those first lifeforms, it didn't hinder their evolution and procreation. The straws you're grasping at are becoming thinner and thinner. I am certain the sun hasn't become less intense has it? If there were no ozone layers to protect the young earth then, then why do we need it now? Why is it that scientists are crying out for us to protect the ozone layer? Without an ozone layer the earth would have fried, including its lifeforms. If heat waves are killing people today then what about life in its early stages then? The theory doesn't hold. Its senseless.
Early lifeforms were aquatic. They didn't need protection from radiation. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
The bible solves that problem when it said that God put everything in place during His creation. For which there is no evidence. None, nada, zilch. You will soon see. Prepare to met thy Creator God soon. Weren't the End Days prophecised to happen in the lifetime of the Apostles? We've been waiting for nearly 2000 years. Ah, well, another fulfilled prophecy. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
All life forms had their own built in protection, although the newly created earth and its atmosphere posed no problem as such. Obviously not. In self-contained phantasy stories those kind of problems are non-existent. Soon when the Creator God of the universe will re-create this world, where as it was in the beginning it shall be in the end. Who are you addressing? Me? Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
There was never any evidence from the start that the earth in earlier times had no oxygen. Wich is a strawman statement only a creationist can make. Who ever said there was no oxygen on the earth? So why all the explanations above? wasn't it apart of the teaching that the early earth had no oxygen in its atmosphere? Familiar with the term reducing atmosphere? Its either the O2 is so low or there is none at all, and/or the only gases present are reducing gases. H2 and methane etc; all of which you're familair with. Creationist "Science"101, statement of faith 3: Atmospheric oxygen is the only oxygen in existence available for metabolic processes. Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
In fact there are geological evidences that show unquestionably, that the earth as far back as can be dated, based on limestone formation, and the presence of ferrous iron found in foundation rocks, proves their conjecture false. Strawman. Ellaborate your reasoning and provide sources for it. Currently it means very little. Why should I when the geologists have already elaborated. Forgive me my presumptuous attitude, but I have little fait in the your copying fidelity when it comes to scientific data and concepts. I would still like to have the sources and reasoning behind it. There ia a lot more to come. I am not finished with you as yet. I am taking it piece by piece.
Looking forward to it. What exactly do you intend to take piece by piece? |
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
@ NferynJust want to ask you one question based on what you said here: 2. Free oxygen in the atmosphere today is mainly the result of photosynthesis. Before photosynthetic plants and bacteria appeared, we would expect little oxygen in the atmosphere for lack of a source. You're saying here quite confidently that photosynthesis became a source for free oxygen in the atmosphere. That we know about based on observations. I have no doubt about that. Firstly, if plants use Co2 and energy to manufacture food and oxygen as basic biology reveals, then where did the oxygen come from in the first place to combine with carbon in order to produce Co2, the very molecule that all plants utilize to make food and to release O2? Bear in mind that plants don't actually manufacture Co2. They just happen to use it as part of a process. I hope you see where I am going with this. Secondly, you mentioned the word today in your statement. Was there a time when photosynthesis as a process wasn't a source of free oxygen in the atmosphere? Was there any other process that facilitated the production of free oxygen in the atmosphere? Just curious.
|
|
|
| |
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Poll
Author
