Evolution? How?

RR:
Bible forecasts a man who will do certain things and will be named Lucifer or 'morning star' which has come to pass. You have been taught only certain parts to fit a certain image that Jesus is the messiah and fulfilled them. He didn't fulfill the messiah part but fulfilled the Lucifer part. Accept the authority of gospels and not the minor teachers. The evidence is in front of you. It shows you are incapable of underdtanding common sense logic but resort to talking points of your priests tryingt o escape the truth. As long you infest this thread I will bring up this Jesus Lucifer link.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

well, nothing interesting here, guess Ill go see whether Gus is up.and pillaging small villages

When you find him let me know and I'll join you.

Meanwhile, the quotes from the bible go round and round, round and round, round and round, yeh the quotes from the Bible go round and round, all through the day...

Go if you must my friend, but you will miss out on all these wonderful Bible quotes which teach us so much. Why, with just a few more quotes I feel certain that we will be on the verge of a breakthrough in human awareneess.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

...There were simpler forms of DNA (such as forms of RNA) before modern DNA evolved.

And before RNA there were even simpler xNA's.

The starting point must have been simple replication in some form....

If we can make a good argument for starting point replication from the chemicals of the time, and since we know things ended up as DNA, we can work in both directions to figure out the steps in....

Hi Ros,

The tentative evolutionary timeline gives you only about 3/4 billion years to go from the Earth's start thru the 'cooling down' and on to the first life.

How long do you actually propose that the Earth was cool enough to begin the chemical process you propose, till the first life?

Are you saying that self replicating molecules qualify as living, so that you can push the time frame back a bit?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Hi Ros,

Alright we'll take it slow.

Your position is that DNA formed itself from a chemical soup prior to the existence of the cell, correct?

No. The scientific standard is that some form of replicative molecule formed from the chemical soup prior to the existence of the cell.

Ok. Now take it from there.

Hi Ros,

My statement was, of course, a generalization as you certainly recognize. I did not list all of the supposed intermediate steps (which BTW you have not done either).

The point is that you propose that DNA ( I know, and other predecessors) carried encoded information for building a cell, before any cell had existed.

Where do you propose that this information came from?

0 Replies

is DNA a living cell? or is it merely a facilitator. Timber posted a nice thread on polynuclear aromatics (which include chemicals from benzene to higer up, then when we add nitrogen we make aniline and up, then with fatty acids (think abiogenic oil) we create sugars such as glucose which, when collapsed and linked in polymeric chains makes glycogen. All this can be made to ccur in the right environment in a few minutes. Dna can be linked from Rna as a ortho positioned methyl RNA, all thats needed are acouple of pi bonds and negative and positive ends of the ligand structure.
You just want us to be aware of the vast magnitudes of choices and the complexity of all this stuff. When you get down to it and try to understand the reactions, theye really not that difficult, more physics of state than chemistry really.

RL, do you wish scientists and all those in molecular biology to quit working ? or do you just want to keep not understanding the nature of the chemical bond and polymerization? I keep a jar of guar gum on my "treasure shelf" we use this as a formational sauce to "prop" open cracks in rocks while we steam chemicals in to make passage cleaner. A 55 gallon drum of this stuff, which has the consistency of tapioca is all one molecule, and we screw around with it all the time with dessicants and metal sauces to change its properties depending on what we want it to do, or how long we want it to set before oxydizing to a liquid (its not alive but with a mix, it could be)

Heres a few questions that < I guarantee that you cannot answer without suspension of Creationism

1why, when we give vitamin and mineral supplements to undernourished anemic individuals, do many of them die of bacterial infection?

2Why did heimlich need to develop a maneuver to dislodge food from peoples windpipes

3why do we have a blind spot in each eye and a tendency for retinal detachment when a squids eye (which have equally sharp vision) doesnt have either problem

3 why is obesity a problem in US

4 When Europeans came to America why did over 90% of the native Americans die of European diseases, but hardly any Europeans died of Indian diseases?

5 Why do pregnant women get morning sickness
6
Why do people in Industrial countries have higher rates of Crohns disease and asthma than those in undeveloped countries

7 why does malaria still kill over a million people each year

8 Why are the sales of DEPENDS so high?

9Why do older men develop urinary problems

10 Why do people of European descent have a fairly high frequency of an allele, which, in the homozygous state, confers resistance to HIV

11Why do many people in Austin Texas suffer from cedar fever

0 Replies

Q1-Yeah-it seems daft.What's up with pobbies?

Q2-His girlfriend spluttered too much after dinner.

Q3-If we didn't have blind spots we would never bother with women and squids don't have that problem on account of not having evolved much cunning so they don't need blind spots.

Q3-To prevent food wastage.(Why have two question 3s.It's not a new scientific ruling to devalue the currency is it?)

Q4-Because we had worse diseases as one would expect after a long crowed sea voyage in a unvaleted ship.

Q5-One can't discuss such delicacies.Women are an enigma, in case you need to know what irreducible complexity is.

Q6-Industrial workers are exposed to other biological environments than are people in "under-developed" countries.

Q7-Because of funds.

Q8-If DEPENDS are dependency drugs it is for a similar reason as Q6.

Q9-Wear and tear.

Q10-Because we invented real ale and drink a lot of it and it confers a number of resistances apart from the one that really matters.It expands the blind spots.

Q11-Do they have a lot of pollen and other excreta of cedar trees in Austen?

0 Replies

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hi Ros,

The tentative evolutionary timeline gives you only about 3/4 billion years to go from the Earth's start thru the 'cooling down' and on to the first life.

Yes, that's very interesting isn't it.

real life wrote:

How long do you actually propose that the Earth was cool enough to begin the chemical process you propose, till the first life?

Another good question. I propose 3/4 billion years, just as you suggested above. But I'm not really sure. Nobody is. But what we do know from the evidence is that life seems to have formed in this span of time.

real life wrote:

Are you saying that self replicating molecules qualify as living, so that you can push the time frame back a bit?

And yet another good question. Wow RL, three in a row, pretty good.

I'm not sure if I consider self replication sufficient to be called life. I would have to debate it a bit.

All in all, the questions and observations you have made here are exactly why I prefer science to poofism. I get to learn from science. I get to take what the evidence shows and ask *how* it happened.

Evidence shows that rudimentaty life was apparently in process on Earth around 3.8billion years ago. And since we estimate the formation of Earth to be around 4.5billion years, that only leaves a certain amount of time for life to have formed (the details of which have yet to emerge be shown with any degree of certainty). It's very intersting, don't you think?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hi Ros,

My statement was, of course, a generalization as you certainly recognize. I did not list all of the supposed intermediate steps (which BTW you have not done either).

Over-generalizing is not helping your case. You are being sloppy with your assumptions and jumping to invalid conclusions because you are not detailed enough.

real life wrote:

The point is that you propose that DNA ( I know, and other predecessors) carried encoded information for building a cell, before any cell had existed.

No. Rudimentary DNA did not necessarily need to code for cell walls. It migth have simply coded for replication and production of proteins which bound to lipid spheres in which surface tension functioned as the cell wall. Modern DNA happens to require a cell to protect it, but it is quite evolved at this point. You are skipping too many steps in your assumptions and drawing premature conclusions.

And as you will probably point out, I haven't told you exactly how it happend yet either, and that's correct. As far as I know, nobody knows exactly how all this happened yet. That's what science is trying to figure out, by means of the scientific method.

All we know beyond a reasonable doubt so far is that the Earth is around 4.5billion years old, and that life was apparently active around 3.8billion years ago. We assume that that life was DNA based, but it might have been RNA based, or something else.

Science is like solving a mystery from clues. Poofism on the other hand, is like solving a mystery by giving up; no fun or growth there.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

This is why we are Christians because we have Christ inside...

I've always wondered about the phrase, "to beat the bejesus out of someone."

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

RR:
Bible forecasts a man who will do certain things and will be named Lucifer or 'morning star' which has come to pass. You have been taught only certain parts to fit a certain image that Jesus is the messiah and fulfilled them. He didn't fulfill the messiah part but fulfilled the Lucifer part. Accept the authority of gospels and not the minor teachers. The evidence is in front of you. It shows you are incapable of underdtanding common sense logic but resort to talking points of your priests tryingt o escape the truth. As long you infest this thread I will bring up this Jesus Lucifer link.

I have no priestly talking points... I write with the authority of the scriptures themselves...

Jesus was never lucifer... he may have picked up the gauntlet but that alone does not make Jesus guilty of the travesty of power committed by lucifer...

Also, I do not believe in the preexistence of Jesus prior to his birth in Bethlehem... other than in God's foreknowledge...

I don't' follow what any religion says I follow what the Bible says... so there is no confusion on that point...

You might re-examine the talking point argument...

Jesus was the messiah to right the wrongs of the first Adam (which involved triumphing over Lucifer and wresting the usurped power back to heaven)...

Jesus did not come to enslave us but to set us free... It is you who has twisted the meaning to fit your rather erroneous view of the Christ...

If you had a corporation and you ran it into the ground and I stepped in as a new president would I be held accountable for your mistakes? What makes you think God's justice is any less fair?

The Bible says Christ Jesus "triumphed" over the devil, made a show of him and took of the spoils... that is a bit different than him becoming or being the devil...

Because we changed regime in Iraq...does that mean we are guilty of Saddam's atrocities because we sit in the same seat of power he once occupied?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

RexRed wrote:
This is why we are Christians because we have Christ inside...

I've always wondered about the phrase, "to beat the bejesus out of someone."

Hehe...

The Bible says God (spirit through Christ) is closer than our breath...

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Also, I do not believe in the preexistence of Jesus prior to his birth in Bethlehem... other than in God's foreknowledge...

if Jesus didnt exist before he was born how could god have known about jesus when he walked on water?

0 Replies

Talk

Also...

When Jesus went into hell he did not just fight the devil and win one thing there were several types of power the devil had either usurped over time...

One was the power of the bright and morning star and one third of the stars in heaven...

This power I believe was given to lucifer in the first creation billions of years before Eden...

Lucifer was supposed to supply a valuable spiritual service to the universe... He was supposed to augment the spiritual heavens..

Yet lucifer over a billions of years fell and created an abyss of evil, chaos and treachery against his own creator...

Lucifer was a created spirit being of spirit...

Thus God chose to after lucifer's total mutiny to form an earth over time. God evolved humans and late in their development he created this self same spirit in them to find obedience to the spirit realm that lucifer had corrupted...

So God gave Adam and Eve conditional spiritual autonomy from the devil...

It was this spirit that was only in God's image if they did not fall into the same evil that the devil did...

Well they not only fell and their fall was as hard as that of the devil... Yet it was Adam who had dominion over the earth... The devil did not... The devil was only a tempting voice of dissent... which added to the free will choice of Adam and Eve...

Yet Adam chose to not only fall into evil but he took this magnificent power of dominion over the earth and gave it to Lucifer...

So this was two times God made created spirit and it fell due to evil...

The devil captured and imprisoned spiritual power during the time of Noah too...

Then we see time pass and Christ is represented with the holy spirit dove descending and resting upon the Christ...

This is the the same spirit that God had created again in Christ...

The spirit because of it's character must be created each time it enters into our world...

Yet Jesus Christ was obedient to the calling...

We have Christ in us... We were crucified with Christ... we were dead with Christ, we were raised with Christ, we were judged with Christ and we are glorified with Christ within... as fellow siblings of the same generation of spirits...

Nothing can corrupt the Christ within...

0 Replies

I'm sorry, but is all this talk somebody's attempt to discredit ID or Creationism?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Also, I do not believe in the preexistence of Jesus prior to his birth in Bethlehem... other than in God's foreknowledge...

if Jesus didnt exist before he was born how could god have known about jesus when he walked on water?

God has foreknowledge... God can see ahead on what we will eventually decide...

God did not walk on the water Jesus did...

More than one God is idolatry...

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I'm sorry, but is all this talk somebody's attempt to discredit ID or Creationism?

I bloody well hope so

0 Replies

Because it this is, I think it's refreshingly different from the normal, circular arguments we have. Well, it's less in the nature of arguments and more in the nature of "provide evidence that is ignored".

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I'm sorry, but is all this talk somebody's attempt to discredit ID or Creationism?

It is an attempt to look at the evolution of the sprit and comparatively evolution of the human body...

It is not only biology that can get into details... The spirit realm has it's own set of matters...

0 Replies

Hogwash, all we have for the last several pages is evidence of your delusions, and your willingness to discuss them, with yourself if no one else is on offer . . .

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know