Creationists...What will it take?

Originally posted by saint4God
Which...kinda led me to another question. Could one consider bacteria to be alive? I know there's some debate on viruses but don't know of recent conclussions.

Thanks for the education as always.

Saint, not sure where this question comes from. I, and I think every other scientist I know of believes bacteria to be alive. Most don't consider viruses to be living. Bacteria, IMO, posses all the characteristics that one normally associates with life. What in particular bothers you about classifying bacteria as living. Sentience is another issue entirely... living on the other hand, I thought was well established. Perhaps you've some info I am not aware of?

Originally posted by truthseeka

How were they sure that they didn't throw out any of the word of God?

It actually told the slaves to OBEY their masters and love them. Look, people, don't take the Good Book too literally.

You could go onto the internet and to a library and find books either way concerning the Bible. Some say it's true some will discredit it. Here's what I know. Some books where not put into or removed because they conflicted with other books of the Bible. As far as copying of the scriptures from what I've studied on the subject they were meticulously hand written word for word and passed on generation to generation.

Now someone will read my post and say I've read this person or that person and they say that mistakes were made and so on. Here's the truth YOU PERSONALLY must decide for yourself whether you believe it is the word of God that He wants us to have right now where we're at. This is going to require reading the Bible itself and researching what those who say the Bible is true have to say about how we got it.

As far as God not saying slavery is wrong I said there's a verse where God told the Israelites not to do it to others, since they knew what it felt like to be a slave. Seems to me this is clear God said don't do it. But guess what people don't listen we think we don't have to obey God. Guess what that's why we live in the kind of world we live in. We make choices that are wrong and then blame God because of the consequences we bring on ourselves.

Regarding alternate Bibles and why the changes...

I'm a Christian, yet I believe that perhaps we're not getting the whole story.

That said... Faith and religion are two separate things to me. I can have faith in God, and not adhere to the teachings of religion. On the same side of the token, one can have religion, but not have faith in God.

That's why there tends to be alternate Bibles. Different religions adopt different interpretations to help themselves appeal to more people and thus bring more into the fold. Usually these differences are often subtle, but the gist of message from the Bible remains in the interpretations.

You have to remember, that at first the Bible was a sacred text kept strictly to the clergy. They controlled the flow of information (anyone catch any parrallels here?) and thus the clergy could control the masses. When the printing press came into being and was widely used (any wonder why the church would protest the device and give it names invoking the Devil. My college professor was still called a "Devil's Apprentice" when he was younger and working the printing room of his father's newspaper.

Back to the subject at hand...

Thus when the Bible became widely printed, changes had to be made. King James assembled scholars and theologians to pick and choose which books would remain what is now the modern Bible.

Other books that were left out did have contradictions. The Book of Thomas basically said that there was no need for the church (man's invention) and it was up to each man to determine his path. -- That would have caused some problems early on.

The Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees describes angels as beings with free will and how they moved among man and goes more into detail about them taking wives among "the daughters of man." -- The church wanted to make sure that man's focus was on them and not to distract them with other powerful beings that may have roamed upon the Earth.

I hope that answered the question.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Saint, not sure where this question comes from. I, and I think every other scientist I know of believes bacteria to be alive. Most don't consider viruses to be living. Bacteria, IMO, posses all the characteristics that one normally associates with life. What in particular bothers you about classifying bacteria as living. Sentience is another issue entirely... living on the other hand, I thought was well established. Perhaps you've some info I am not aware of?

Nothing at all bothers me about bacteria being alive. Okay, you've caught me, I'm on another thread reading about when/at what level life begins...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'd be interested in your assessment for humans, does life begin at fertilization, zygote, before, after, etc. if you're willing to take a look at the link.

Besides all that, if we say evolution happens to viruses, then evolution is not a 'life' process or would viruses then be considered alive because they can evolve? This gets interesting. Then, does something not alive 'become' alive or does it always have to come from something already living? I'm getting all Genesis with the chicken vs. egg theory, but it gets a bit tangled the further back you go I think.


[edit on 24-2-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Nothing at all bothers me about bacteria being alive. Okay, you've caught me, I'm on another thread reading about when/at what level life begins...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've seen this thread... I like to shy away from any threads this heated, especially when you're dealing with something so relative like morality. Please don't misunderstand... not saying your morality is relative, but an individuals morality is, and is subject to different interpretations and different cultural influences, and even different bases in reality.

I'd be interested in your assessment for humans, does life begin at fertilization, zygote, before, after, etc. if you're willing to take a look at the link.

My personal opinion: Life begins at conception, sentience begins... later. But because I believe life begins at conception does not make me a pro-lifer. I am a firm believer in 'not legislating morality.' While I personally, have never been involved in an abortion, and under no circumstances can I think of would I want to be involved in an abortion, I don't believe that laws should prevent people from doing this. I am in no position to judge someone else's place in life and can't use my relative morality meter to judge others by. I haven't walked a mile or even a step in ANYONE else's shoes, and unqualified and uncomfortable commenting on such things... even in anonymous forum.

Besides all that, if we say evolution happens to viruses, then evolution is not a 'life' process or would viruses then be considered alive because they can evolve? This gets interesting. Then, does something not alive 'become' alive or does it always have to come from something already living? I'm getting all Genesis with the chicken vs. egg theory, but it gets a bit tangled the further back you go I think.

I agree. This is an interesting topic. Viruses are capable of evolving only as a consequence of the processes of life. Heritable mutations in nucleic acid are passed onto progeny, even if the viruses themselves don't directly synthesize the progeny. In a sense... viruses could be considered to be some of the most highly evolved organisms... producing millions of variants/generation. While the overall numbers of generations of viruses is probably less relative to a prolific bacterium like E. Coli, the absolute variation is most likely much greater. Viruses produce genetic variation at faster rate than cellular life, in essence they are the most stripped down organisms possible. Depending on your perspective, this can be a reasonable estimate of evolution. E. Coli, IMO, is more highly evolved than human beings. They've had probably 100's of billions of more generations than human kind has and have had more time to perfect their genome. Bacterial genomes, and bacteria in general tend to be minimalists, not 'carting around' genes and other things they don't need. It seems like they are evolving more concise genome than humans have. By this estimation, viruses could be some of the most evolved organisms.

Not sure if I answered your question, Saint... sorry went off on a tangent... let me know if you need further clarification.


[edit on 24-2-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by mattison0922
I've seen this thread... I like to shy away from any threads this heated, especially when you're dealing with something so relative like morality. Please don't misunderstand... not saying your morality is relative, but an individuals morality is, and is subject to different interpretations and different cultural influences, and even different bases in reality.

Do you think taking a stand on morality in some way detracts from your ability to approach situations from a scientific perspective? Get me not wrong, your neutrality gives a 'matter of fact' view to an otherwise very, very opinionated situation, which is highly appreciated, however I tend to think you'd be just as well if not more respected in your opinions/assertions BECAUSE of the facts/proofs you're able to provide in these situations.

Originally posted by saint4God
Do you think taking a stand on morality in some way detracts from your ability to approach situations from a scientific perspective?

With respect to this particular issue, no, I don't believe so. Mostly because my science has nothing to do with this particular moral issue. In other situations... absolutely. I can't approach the eugenics movement with an open mind at all... I will never be able to get past my moral hesitation to think rationally about the science behind it, nor the potential benefits of such a movement. IMO, personal and professional, the absolute worth of any human being cannot be determined by or broken down into absolutes via their DNA sequence. I will never be able to approach eugenics with a clear, open mind because of that belief.

Get me not wrong, your neutrality gives a 'matter of fact' view to an otherwise very, very opinionated situation, which is highly appreciated,

Don't get ME wrong. I am distinctly not neutral about the topic of abortion. I am personally completely opposed to abortion. I wouldn't advise anyone to have one, nor do I believe it ever to be the best choice given other possibilities. However, I don't pretend that I can make that decision for others.

however I tend to think you'd be just as well if not more respected in your opinions/assertions BECAUSE of the facts/proofs you're able to provide in these situations.

I am not sure that all the facts in the world will ever change anyone's opinion re: these types of issues... especially with respect to a topic such as abortion.

Originally posted by mattison0922
I will never be able to approach eugenics with a clear, open mind because of that belief.

Good. Hm, did I just advocate a closed-mind on a subject? I guess when it's the right thing to do, I liked to think of it as fortitude after consideration of all the facts, benefits and repercussions.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Don't get ME wrong. I am distinctly not neutral about the topic of abortion. I am personally completely opposed to abortion. I wouldn't advise anyone to have one, nor do I believe it ever to be the best choice given other possibilities. However, I don't pretend that I can make that decision for others.

Wohoo! I got an opinion *cheers*! Yeah, I know I can't either but a lot of people are here for advice so I cannot allow myself to be idle. This isn't how it used to be though, I've recently been directed otherwise.

Originally posted by mattison0922
I am not sure that all the facts in the world will ever change anyone's opinion re: these types of issues... especially with respect to a topic such as abortion.

Facts have changed my mind on many issues... I can only hope there is someone who's not so enveloped in themselves to see truth. Opinions has also changed my mind per the example of the girl I knew who had an abortion. Before that, my response used to be "It ain't me so it ain't my deal." I took her misery as a warning to protect those who were about to enact it upon themselves though not forcefully, not threateningly, but reasonably and compassionately.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Operative phrase there probably being IMO. I don't think anyone denies that cells dividing and reproducing is life in context other than abortion. I would imagine that's where you going with the bacteria discussion?

Ya. I want to know if evolution is a function of living organisms, non-living organisms, both, neither, or transitional. In order to determine that, I'd have to gauge what your thoughts on what is living and what isn't. Now when I studied sciences, I got a lot of 'well who cares, it's all non-living chemicals anyway' implying that I, as well as all living creatures are dead. Not dead in the biological sense, just one controlled entirely by genetics and environmental persuasion which I know for a fact through my experiences, is not true.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Lots of people... young people especially, don't like receiving advice on what to do... even if your intentions are good.

Hm, something I'll have to keep in mind when reading into posts.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Don't disappear!! Speaking or writing of which... have you 'seen' schmick?

I won't under my own initiative, but the egg-timer is ticking so who knows when any of us are going to be considered 'done'. I haven't seen shmick, no, which is unusual given the topics that have been repeating...er...coming up as of late.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Just about everything I've ever learned, I've learned the hard way... makes for tough lessons, but I've never forgotten.

Hehe, I'm the same way. I don't know why. I should be able to deduce that the pot is hot before touching it, but for some reason had a hard time keeping my finger from poking at it until I get some kind of burn. Scarier still is knowing that my hardest lesson(s) have yet to come. All part of growth though, to be bold in the face of adversity.

Originally posted by mattison0922
I don't know that I've too many things that I regret... certainly I've made mistakes, and I've hurt people close to me, but honestly some of the best lessons I've learned were learned throught 'bad' experience. The thing is I've resolved my conflicts with the people I've hurt, and am totally comfortable with where my life is. I've learned a lot of great lessons, have had some amazing experiences. Thus, how can I regret anything?

That's a very positive way of looking at it. I have some regrets though understand the lesson I was supposed to learn, so in that I have a level of comfort. Though very few, some of my situations or conflicts are irreconcilable (triple word score for Scrabble!) at this point.

Originally posted by mattison0922
You wouldn't believe the feathers you can ruffle by stating that bacteria are much more highly evolved than humans...

I like to compare my view on it like a pet store. In spending enough hours in a lab with it, I tend to appreciate the complexity and abilites of the critters. Not to say I'm a bacteriophile, I clean my house regularly.

Originally posted by mattison0922
you want to piss a room full of people off... creationists, evolutionists, whatever... make that statement.

Good! I'll keep it in my back pocket with my petri dish. Speaking of, my daughter has a case of steptococcus earlier this week. You shoud've seen the culture colonies I grew from it! Kidding, kidding..

Originally posted by mattison0922
Ahhhh yes.... another science geek.

Shhh, not to loud. I'm trying to remain 'incognito'.

Originally posted by mattison0922
I am a very moral individual with a highly evolved sense of what I perceive to be right and wrong. I make a concerted effort not to judge others, but that is NOT to say that I approve of all behavior, I just don't believe it's my place to judge. Judgement lies within the hands of another, and is distinctly not my place.

I refuse to judge others. Not to say I haven't, being someone as mouthy as I am, said something judgemental at one point or another. I do not know anyone's heart. I have an ability to discern right and wrong so I usually try to explain why things are right or wrong and let people decide.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Likewise... don't run off either... while I might not comment on your posting, I do follow it.

I won't run off...which is not to say I wouldn't be pounded where I stand. If I can still type and the site allows me to post, I'll be here.

Final comments on the Bible

I like how dbrandt backed off when I brought up the Bible editing. I guess this goes to the rest of you Christians, too. Saint4god, how did this council know that these "conflicting" books weren't divine. Seems to me that they knew these texts further discredited the Bible. Hey, look at science, real science. If you find something that discredits your hypothesis (like an outlier in biostatistics) you don't say "Well, this conflicts my hypothesis, let's throw this data out." No, you INCLUDE this conflicting data and attempt to explain it. Not so with the Bible. "These books contradict other stuff, we can't have this. Throw them out." Seems like someone was looking out for other things than the truth.

Yes, I do believe in a Supreme Being. Yes, I do believe that organized religion is a tool to control the masses. No, I don't think that this higher power's name is God, but for simplicity, I can refer to it as such. And no, I don't believe that the Bible is the verbatim Word of God.

Anyway, back to evolution.

What people who discredit evolution fail to realize is that evolution can in no way speak of the existence or works of God. Hell, geology has a more theological aspect than biology. In that discipline, you talk about the beginning of everything. With evolution, you BARELY speculate on the origin of life. What evolution chiefly concerns is the progression of existing life.

Just look at cell theory.

1. All living things are made up of cells.
2. All cells come from pre-existing cells.

There is NOTHING here about where the 1st cell came from, or where its molecules came from, or where the atoms that compose the molecules that compose the cell came from. Evolution can't speak to that.

As others have mentioned here, God/religion is OUTSIDE the realm of science. Science only concerns things in the physical universe. And, of course, the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven through evidence in the physical universe.

Why do people not believe that evolution occurs in labs? Of course, those who do argue that it's ONLY microevolution. If so, you MUST accept the existence of microevolution. Microevolution is a change in allelic frequency in a population over time. Surely, a population can experience changes in allelic frequencies over time???

You can't prove macroevolution in a lab because you need 100s of generations, and 100s of thousands or millions of years to see this. However, there is evidence of organic evolution, which is pretty much what is being discussed here.

Good argument about virus evolution, Saint4god. However, it doesn't hold up too well. I could say that the Dead Sea (or Red Sea, well, it was some sea), which almost dried up at some point, "evolved" a way to maintain water and not disappear. Obviously, that doesn't mean that this sea is alive, it just means that the sea possibly (but unlikely) adapted a means of keeping water. Viruses aren't considered to be truly alive, yet they can adapt ways of overcoming the defenses of their hosts.

Hey, there's even evidence of evolution in geology. In geology, you can tell the relative age of a rock embedded in a layer of other rocks of different, sequential ages merely by looking at the fossils. They call this faunal succession.

Hey, deny the notion that God didn't create life as much as you like. But, people who don't believe in evolution, don't deny that evolution itself doesn't exist. The people who deny it because they don't believe people came from apes are only partly correct. People didn't come from apes, we just have the same ancestor. And people who don't follow the "survival of the fittest" idea are also partly correct. Darwin didn't describe organic evolution as survival of the fittest; one of his contemporary followers dubbed it. It doesn't matter how strong, or how fast, or how smart, or how good-looking an organism is. What really matters is the reproductive success of the organism, which leads into natural selection.

Originally posted by truthseeka

I like how dbrandt backed off when I brought up the Bible editing. But, people who don't believe in evolution, don't deny that evolution itself doesn't exist.

What you obviously missed a post. Your confusing evolution with metamorphosis.

WTF dbrandt?? Do you even know what you're talking about? Obviously, no.

What metamorphism am I confusing evolution with? Rock metamorphism? Insect, frog, etc. metamorphism? Can I buy kill from you, because you obviously are smoking some good stuff.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Final comments on the Bible

I like how dbrandt backed off when I brought up the Bible editing. I guess this goes to the rest of you Christians, too. Saint4god, how did this council know that these "conflicting" books weren't divine.

Did I say conflicting? I'm sorry, I meant inconsistant. Basically, in science or anything for that matter, do you include something that isn't or cannot be verified? If you do, fine, but doesn't hold a candle to something that is verified. That's all I'm saying. I hadn't read or heard anything in the apocrytha that was conflicting, contradictory, or important to the rest of the combined books. Always open to being shown otherwise though.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Seems to me that they knew these texts further discredited the Bible.

How so?

Originally posted by truthseeka
Yes, I do believe that organized religion is a tool to control the masses.

Here we go. Let's hear your complaint about church and why you truly don't want to go then.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Viruses aren't considered to be truly alive, yet they can adapt ways of overcoming the defenses of their hosts.

As far as I understood it, adaptation is a result of survival of the fittest (according to Darwinian implication), yes? If it isn't alive, what need is there for adaptation? Hm...I think you've convinced me viruses are alive.

Originally posted by truthseeka
What really matters is the reproductive success of the organism, which leads into natural selection.

So why don't humans have chitinous shells, gigantic genitalia and hundreds of off-spring at a time. Should we be bowing to the mighty roach?

Saint: good question. If I asked you, "well, why do creatures besides humans exist at all?" you would probably tell me "because in the bible, God made animals to keep man company," or something. Fine.

We know HOW different creatures came to be through evolution, but to ask why one species evolved to be a horse and another a human is to ask, why bother? What's the point? Why do we live? There may be a million answers or no answers to this philosophical inquiry. If you ask me, I will tell you, "the point of life is living."

"Survival of the fittest," does not imply "survival of the most reproductive." Will cockroaches develop rocket science to get off the planet before the sun explodes? Well, since you asked, , "maybe." They have a few billion years of evolution to go, before that happens. Will humans? Perhaps. Maybe we'll take some roaches or roach DNA with us for posterity, thus ensuring not only our survival, but the survival of our planetary progress - the fruits of our planet's production.

Maybe "the fittest" are meant to command the forces of their environments and the very energy that they came from. Maybe we evolved a facility of intelligence to protect the planet from meteors until we can suit up and move out before the sun explodes, eh?

In any case, humans appear to be the fittest to survive through the long term, at the moment.

And, by the way, some of us do have gigantic genitalia.

Zip

Why do creationists oppose science so? The Bible is filled with same, from agriculture, to culinary art, to the use of the wheel to the invention of brick, to architecture, to metallurgy, to weapons of warfare, to astronomical science.

Every single one of the opponents of evolutionary science benefits today in ways too numerous to mention from the scienctific community, and every single one of you would have no doubt been members of the anti-scientific like-minded zealots of the past. The one difference is that today you have only the hope of censure to silence your opponent, where in centuries past you had the reality of confinement and death.

I note it is never past scientific theory later proven to be fact that you attack. No failed theories to report on, I suppose. Christian theology is changing as well for no longer are they in unanimous agreement that God created everything in 6 days among other things, in fact, that would be because they are experiencing an evolution of their own, at a snails pace, but none the less, an evolution. The religious crowd is always behind, not just by centuries but oft times by millenia.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The Bible is filled with same, from Christian theology is changing as well for no longer are they in unanimous agreement that God created everything in 6 days among other things, in fact, that would be because they are experiencing an evolution of their own,

Or you could say it like this:
1 Timothy 4:1-2 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Originally posted by dbrandtOr you could say it like this:
1 Timothy 4:1-2 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

I would if I it were worthy, relevant or of substance.

I leave it to you to take up its cause for falls in between the three descriptions above.

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
news.bbc.co.uk...://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html/nature/4104483.stm
heres 2 links showing were science is in creating life from chemicals in the lab if you read closly you will see its only a matter of interatation as to the sucess of this . From the bbc news link read under synthetic virus section and you will see how a virus formed from off the shelf chemicals .
If its possible in the lab surly given a billion years nature could do it.
A quote I like.( If given a infinit amount of monkeys and a infinit amount of word prossers you could wright existence into being.
The odds of life forming through a chemical reaction are billions to one but lest we forget we live in a univers of 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and I could go on to fill up the internet with zeros and still not represent the number of stars let along planets . Do any of you know who odds work? you play a dollor on the lotto the odds are 14 million to one . Now you play 14 million $ and are NOW granted you will win .This has accutly been done once in a state lotto when the winnings were much higher then the odds .
so with a infinit amount of planets to work with and odds of a billion to 1 your granted trillions of planets with life.
Ps given trillions of planets with life your granted your wildest nightmare or fondest dream is out there some were.

There's a LOT you should mention about this link you provided, the biggest point being that this Synthetic Virus was built on an already existing genome. (the polio virus). Also, according to the article, scientists argue amonst themselves all the time as to whether or not viruses are true life forms. (They don't eat or expel waste, they don't mate and multiply,]

Still, you bring up some good points. The most complicated life forms on this planet are still made up of chemicals readily available, assuming you have the right catalogues.

My point of course, is that someone (or something) had to create the FIRST living, breathing, multiplying CELL. Any takers on that one?

I don't know what it could possibly take,
but evidence continues to unfold.
Very recent examples add to the mountain
of data proving evolution.
And evolutionary science is often
reexamined when new evidence
contradicticts previous observations.
We also find that humans are affecting
our own evolutionary process.
This is particularly poignant, in light of the
environmental changes we make in the world.
Sure, there ares gaps in evolution just
as in any science. But unanswered questions
await only new discoveries to fill in the blanks,
such as: "what was the food source for
early freshwater fish?"