Evolution? How?

Atlantis has nothing to do with me.

You marshall an army of strawmen, make up more nonsense about prehistoric man, and declare yourself the winner. But there was never any contest--the rest of us don't inhabit your fantasy world.

Once again, you burden this thread with no germane comments, just your "intellectual" masturbation . . .

Babylon was no myth to the ancient Greeks and Romans, Rex - they'd been there, wrote about it, and even brought back souvenirs - like slaves and treasures. No one of any credibility ever has said ancient Babylon was a myth. If you contend that only in the past couple centuries has there been any archaelogic evidence of its existence, I'll point out there wasn't a science of archaeology untill the 18th Century. Your argument is absurd. You gotta get better sources.

real life wrote:

If, as you propose, the xNA molecule and the lipids ( the acting 'cell membrane' ) accidentally come together, then the xNA molecule is not going to have the information to produce it's 'cell membrane'. That means in each successive 'generation' that they will have to continually come together accidentally, an unlikely assumption.

It's no more unlikely than salt finding its way into sea foam. We're talking about oceans of chemicals sloshing around in all kinds of conditions.

real life wrote:

Even it that unlikely happenstance were to continuously take place, the xNA molecule never has the coded information to produce it's own protective cell membrane.

I covered this already. Random changes in the xNA which led to any improvement in the abilit to stabilize the protection, no matter how small, would have had a higher probability of replication (passing on the encoded changes).

And that's just one possible scenario. Many times the structures we see in life forms were not originally required by their predecessors, but evolved into a required structure as the organism changed over time.

We could go on and on with possibilities here. But so far you haven't proven that any of this is impossible, or even improbable. Meanwhile Timber and others have been providing real testable chemical evidence which are offering more and more possibilities.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

If, as you propose, the xNA molecule and the lipids ( the acting 'cell membrane' ) accidentally come together, then the xNA molecule is not going to have the information to produce it's 'cell membrane'. That means in each successive 'generation' that they will have to continually come together accidentally, an unlikely assumption.

It's no more unlikely than salt finding its way into sea foam. We're talking about oceans of chemicals sloshing around in all kinds of conditions.

real life wrote:

Even it that unlikely happenstance were to continuously take place, the xNA molecule never has the coded information to produce it's own protective cell membrane.

I covered this already. Random changes in the xNA which led to any improvement in the abilit to stabilize the protection, no matter how small, would have had a higher probability of replication (passing on the encoded changes).

And that's just one possible scenario. Many times the structures we see in life forms were not originally required by their predecessors, but evolved into a required structure as the organism changed over time.

We could go on and on with possibilities here. But so far you haven't proven that any of this is impossible, or even improbable. Meanwhile Timber and others have been providing real testable chemical evidence which are offering more and more possibilities.

You are trying to make a case for encoding some additional improvement in stabilizing the protective mechanism would also somehow include the information for the original protective mechanism itself (which the xNA did NOT possess the information for). This seems a lot like wishful thinking.

timberlandko wrote:

Babylon was no myth to the ancient Greeks and Romans, Rex - they'd been there, wrote about it, and even brought back souvenirs - like slaves and treasures. No one of any credibility ever has said ancient Babylon was a myth. If you contend that only in the past couple centuries has there been any archaelogic evidence of its existence, I'll point out there wasn't a science of archaeology untill the 18th Century. Your argument is absurd. You gotta get better sources.

Look again my friend... you cannot shove this one under the rug...

Not so long ago the only fragment we had that any city ever existed with the name Babylon was the Bible...

And this was sorely contested along with many other cities that have since been found, mentioned only in the Bible...

Yes we have since found many artifacts (letters between the kings of Egypt and Babylon) from other cities that also prove the existence of Babylon... But at one time the Bible was the sole and only mention of the city... Think of what the "deists" did with that one...

Set

We see a period where human art is uninhibited by sexuality then we see a period where it is inhibited by sexuality then we have a story that dates back to the exact time in question that tells of two humans discovering their nakedness. Do you have a better historical story that dates back to antiquities that explains why we went from uninhibited sexuality cults in France, China, India etc... that were then replaced by sexually inhibited cults...

You are trying to make a case for encoding some additional improvement in stabilizing the protective mechanism would also somehow include the information for the original protective mechanism itself (which the xNA did NOT possess the information for). This seems a lot like wishful thinking.

The old question, why God made the world, has never been answered, nor will be. We know not why the world should be, we only know that there it is.

I came across an interesting quote from a contemporary of Charles Darwin. Thomas Hill Green (1836-1882) was a professor of moral philosophy at Oxford University. Green wrote about the nature of God and also about the methods of natural science.

Quote:

The old question, why God made the world, has never been answered, nor will be. We know not why the world should be, we only know that there it is.

To, to make a decision to work in the field of space science is almost the ultimate delayed gratification. Yes, the principle investigator on this mission, Allen Stern, and the science team -- many of them, too numerous to mention -- who have worked on this have devoted major portions of their careers to it and have a good-sized chunk yet to go before they see the results. ....... God has laid out the solar system in a way that requires a certain amount of patience on the part of we who choose to explore it.

wandeljw wrote:

I came across an interesting quote from a contemporary of Charles Darwin. Thomas Hill Green (1836-1882) was a professor of moral philosophy at Oxford University. Green wrote about the nature of God and also about the methods of natural science.

Quote:

The old question, why God made the world, has never been answered, nor will be. We know not why the world should be, we only know that there it is.

An interesting quote earlier this week from Mike Griffin, NASA Administrator

Quote:

To, to make a decision to work in the field of space science is almost the ultimate delayed gratification. Yes, the principle investigator on this mission, Allen Stern, and the science team -- many of them, too numerous to mention -- who have worked on this have devoted major portions of their careers to it and have a good-sized chunk yet to go before they see the results. ....... God has laid out the solar system in a way that requires a certain amount of patience on the part of we who choose to explore it.

real life wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

I came across an interesting quote from a contemporary of Charles Darwin. Thomas Hill Green (1836-1882) was a professor of moral philosophy at Oxford University. Green wrote about the nature of God and also about the methods of natural science.

Quote:

The old question, why God made the world, has never been answered, nor will be. We know not why the world should be, we only know that there it is.

An interesting quote earlier this week from Mike Griffin, NASA Administrator

Quote:

To, to make a decision to work in the field of space science is almost the ultimate delayed gratification. Yes, the principle investigator on this mission, Allen Stern, and the science team -- many of them, too numerous to mention -- who have worked on this have devoted major portions of their careers to it and have a good-sized chunk yet to go before they see the results. ....... God has laid out the solar system in a way that requires a certain amount of patience on the part of we who choose to explore it.

Oh, don't stop there.......

Griffin said he had an answer for those who may question spending $700 million on a mission to study Pluto and the Kuiper (pronounced KY-per) Belt, which is too far away to observe in any detail from Earth.


"Of what value do you think it might be to be able to study the primordial constituents from which the solar system and all the planets and we, ourselves, were formed?" Griffin said.

http://channelone.com/news/2006/01/20/ap_pluto/

Do you think him 'unscientific' because he seems to, as we have referred to earlier, 'include God in the process' of evolution?

The reason I ask is because that seems to be a line of thought from some that if a strictly naturalistic explanation is not the only one allowed then somehow we are not scientific in our approach.

Quote:

Do you think him 'unscientific' because he seems to, as we have referred to earlier, 'include God in the process' of evolution?

The reason I ask is because that seems to be a line of thought from some that if a strictly naturalistic explanation is not the only one allowed then somehow we are not scientific in our approach.

If he was trying to create a scientific theory that explained the universe and evolution etc and it included god then yes, it he is unscientific. I don't know much about him in general but it seems his work merely entails studying the solar system. It doesnt matter then if he believes God made it or a giant turtle so long as he tries not to bring that into any official scientific explanations.

El-Diablo wrote:

Quote:

Do you think him 'unscientific' because he seems to, as we have referred to earlier, 'include God in the process' of evolution?

The reason I ask is because that seems to be a line of thought from some that if a strictly naturalistic explanation is not the only one allowed then somehow we are not scientific in our approach.

If he was trying to create a scientific theory that explained the universe and evolution etc and it included god then yes, it he is unscientific. I don't know much about him in general but it seems his work merely entails studying the solar system. It doesnt matter then if he believes God made it or a giant turtle so long as he tries not to bring that into any official scientific explanations.

So do you consider Newton and many of the great scientists of the last few centuries who saw no conflict between these as being unscientific as well?

real life wrote:

El-Diablo wrote:

Quote:

Do you think him 'unscientific' because he seems to, as we have referred to earlier, 'include God in the process' of evolution?

The reason I ask is because that seems to be a line of thought from some that if a strictly naturalistic explanation is not the only one allowed then somehow we are not scientific in our approach.

If he was trying to create a scientific theory that explained the universe and evolution etc and it included god then yes, it he is unscientific. I don't know much about him in general but it seems his work merely entails studying the solar system. It doesnt matter then if he believes God made it or a giant turtle so long as he tries not to bring that into any official scientific explanations.

So do you consider Newton and many of the great scientists of the last few centuries who saw no conflict between these as being unscientific as well?

Depends. Did Newton or any of the others use "God did it" as an answer to their questions?
P

Newton and many others were quite clear in their belief that God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it.

Does that make them 'unscientific' in your view?

If so, guess which one of you is probably in error.