Yet another reason why the Genesis account is silly.

reply to post by dashen


Eh...I can't really verify this paper. Read it over but I can't seem to find the papers cited so I can't check for consistency with work cited. Of course, the idea that we have a common 'mother' 6000 years ago still has problems, as we'd have genetic profiles similar to cheetahs, which experienced a rapid decline in genetic diversity 10,000 years ago and have more genetic diversity within the species than some of us do within families.

reply to post by maskfan


Yet you cannot prove the conjecture of a divine creator. Hell, all of the things that would be expected from a world created by a perfect being simply aren't there.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by maskfan

 

Yet you cannot prove the conjecture of a divine creator. Hell, all of the things that would be expected from a world created by a perfect being simply aren't there.

If I may interject, what would you expect of a world created by a perfect being?

reply to post by dashen


Well, I'm going to quickly correct myself before I continue. Some of the things found in a world created by a perfect being are present. We can apply discoveries of the natural world universally, for one.

Of course, some things stand out. Now, if a perfect being is apathetic to the universe as a whole and its occupants (though normal monotheistic tradition doesn't paint 'divine' beings as apathetic), then these all don't matter.

For one thing, we can clearly see that there are unnecessary items in the fundamental groundwork of our universe. We can actually show that a universe could exist with only three of the four fundamental forces of nature (without the weak atomic force). We have a universe that is almost entirely empty, I'm quite sure an intelligent being would note the waste in that. We have a planet where almost all life fuels itself by killing or otherwise harming other life.

I would expect that a universe created by a perfect being would be simpler. Why? Well, if you look at complex items that arise naturally (like a wall made of driftwood along a coast) vs things that arise through intelligence (like a wooden wall), the things that arise via intelligence are always as simple as possible or at least infinitely more simple.

And why would a perfect being created a universe where most life exists on a planet via devouring or harming other forms of life? Wouldn't we all be able to live off of photosynthesis in a perfect world?

I mean, just off the top of my head without a lot of thought put into it I've got that.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Although, granted that there are an infinite number of parameter we could debate, let me stick to the one you broached. Is it not odd that there is a planet that CAN survive solely on the life present on that planet. That one has the inborn capability of consuming present materials, and incorporate it into itself. Much like our galaxy or solar system for that matter is likely the result of a long ago destroyed star system, reconstituted into its present form. Or that our galaxy can ONLY exist because of the destructive forces of black holes pulling the galaxy into its center. It would appear that all basic creative processes are executed through some form of destruction.

Originally posted by dashen
Is it not odd that there is a planet that CAN survive solely on the life present on that planet. That one has the inborn capability of consuming present materials, and incorporate it into itself.

What are you talking about?

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by dashen
Is it not odd that there is a planet that CAN survive solely on the life present on that planet. That one has the inborn capability of consuming present materials, and incorporate it into itself.

What are you talking about?

Good question. It is a wonder to me anyway that at some point on planet earth, organisms apparently went from a photosynthetic, or chemosynthetic metabolic system, to a mechanism that consumed the above organisms. The wonder is how an organism can go from one system to the other, even accounting for countless generations of genetic mutation. It would have to completey overhaul its entire organelle system, evolve mechanisms to first consume, then digest, and then excrete waste from the new food source, all happening at the same time.

reply to post by dashen


Um...producing organisms didn't develop prior to consuming ones. And photosynthesis itself requires the consumption of external matter, it simply doesn't require the matter to be living or previously living.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by dashen

 

Um...producing organisms didn't develop prior to consuming ones.

citation needed...........

There is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes in the overall scheme of cell evolution. Current opinions on the origin and position of eukaryotes span a broad spectrum including the views that eukaryotes arose first in evolution and that prokaryotes descend from them, that eukaryotes arose contemporaneously with eubacteria and archeabacteria and hence represent a primary line of descent of equal age and rank as the prokaryotes, that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing an endosymbiotic origin of the nucleus, that eukaryotes arose without endosymbiosis, and that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing a simultaneous endosymbiotic origin of the flagellum and the nucleus, in addition to many other models, which have been reviewed and summarized elsewhere.

^ Martin, William. Woe is the Tree of Life. In Microbial Phylogeny and Evolution: Concepts and Controversies (ed. Jan Sapp). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005: 139.

Also





Also note that purple bacteria are the earliest form of anoxygenic photosynthetic organisms arising just after the earliest prokaryotic single cell organisms who might I add consumed free floating organic material or were chemosynthetic/photosynthetic in nature.

Originally posted by dashen
Good question. It is a wonder to me anyway that at some point on planet earth, organisms apparently went from a photosynthetic, or chemosynthetic metabolic system, to a mechanism that consumed the above organisms. The wonder is how an organism can go from one system to the other, even accounting for countless generations of genetic mutation. It would have to completey overhaul its entire organelle system, evolve mechanisms to first consume, then digest, and then excrete waste from the new food source, all happening at the same time.

Not necessarily. Plants and animals likely diverged extremely early on in their evolutionary chains.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So, according to a literal reading of Genesis 2, Adam and slightly later Eve were created and became the ancestors of everyone alive to day. Young Earth creationists put this at 6 days shy of about 6000-10000 years ago. I've heard various different time periods for when Adam and Eve existed from Old Earth creationists, so I'll just address the You

However, this becomes a problem. Well....where's the genetic evidence of such a narrow population of humans existing 6000-10000 years ago? Why is it that the common female ancestor (metaphorically dubbed mitochondrial Eve) and the common male ancestor (metaphorically dubbed Y chromosomal Adam) existed thousands of years apart rather than in the same time period?

This is just another obvious instance of the story not adding up literally, though there is allegorical meaning to it.

From your minister,

en.wikipedia.org...
Humans

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has postulated that human mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from one's mother) and Y chromosome DNA (from one's father) show coalescence at around 140,000 and 60,000 years ago respectively. In other words, all living humans' female line ancestry trace back to a single female (Mitochondrial Eve) at around 140,000 years ago. Via the male line, all humans can trace their ancestry back to a single male (Y-chromosomal Adam) at around 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.

With that said yes the years do not fit with my belief of 6000 to 10,000 years but his statement
his statement is a Belief and therefore a faith and so then it is not for positive that the years are correct; yet the idea is the same one female is the mother to all

HMMMP

en.wikipedia.org...
Axiom

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

reply to post by Golden Boy


Why did plants evolve into all forms anyway, why do we have oranges and bananas yet they do not cross breed?

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by Golden Boy

 

Why did plants evolve into all forms anyway

Differing ecological pressures and mutations.

why do we have oranges and bananas yet they do not cross breed?

Because their genetics are not compatible.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


Evolution, 'nuff said (Golden Boy said it already anyway).

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
From your minister,

en.wikipedia.org...
Humans

Richard Dawkins is not my minister, he's an evolutionary biologist.

*snipped material on M-Eve and Y-Adam*

With that said yes the years do not fit with my belief of 6000 to 10,000 years but his statement
his statement is a Belief and therefore a faith and so then it is not for positive that the years are correct; yet the idea is the same one female is the mother to all

Except it's not a belief, it's demonstrable, verifiable scientific evidence. Your position, on the other hand, is fallacious and stands in the face of demonstrable evidence. Humans have been around even longer than Mitochondrial Eve, we have evidence of that much, and even she is at least 14x older than you think humanity is.

HMMMP

en.wikipedia.org...
Axiom

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

Your idea is not axiomatic, it's a baseless assertion. You can also demonstrate something is axiomatic.

reply to post by dashen


I'm sorry, I meant to include the word necessarily. I apologize for my lack of clarity. I was attempting to refer to the fact that they aren't sure if they developed successively and what order if they did or if they evolved simultaneously. Still trying to crack that egg it seems.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SunSword

 

...Now, Genesis 1 cannot be a literal account either, as the Sun and Moon are created after plants and avian life precedes land animals. That's enough to show that the account is incorrect.

Not quite. If you assume that the viewpoint of Genesis 1 is from the surface of the Earth, and read carefully, it does NOT say that the Sun and Moon were created after plants. It says LET there be lights, and the lights were made to GOVERN. You see, if you read the actual text, and hold it up to the scientific description of the history of Earth, they match. Reason is, before plants there was very little oxygen in the atmosphere. It was mostly CO2, water vapor, and nitrogen. Think thick fog, clouds all the way from the surface to miles up. After the plants deployed, the atmosphere gradually added Oxygen and it cleared up to being similar to the way it is today. Only after it cleared could you SEE the Sun and the Moon. Fact.

So there you are. Plants came first, then the atmosphere cleared up, then you could see the Sun and the Moon (let there be lights) and they were not created, they were "made to govern".

Really, each verse correlates well to what science says happened. In the same order. And obviously the "days" were not 24 hour days. They are just ways to divide the narrative into sections.

Originally posted by SunSword
Not quite. If you assume that the viewpoint of Genesis 1 is from the surface of the Earth, and read carefully, it does NOT say that the Sun and Moon were created after plants. It says LET there be lights, and the lights were made to GOVERN.

Well, no.

Genesis 1:11, KJV
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:14, KJV
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Unless you think that "made" means something other than "created", what madness says is entirely correct.

Biology and geology never being amongst 'subjects to keep up with' for me, I hope we eventually can include genesis 1 on this thread or elsewhere, as it relates more to physics, where I feel at home.

Genesis 1 is really a juicy bit considered from most perspectives relating to christian: Literalism, symbolism, cherry-picking, bible-coherence, bible-'totality-reading' claims, old and new covenants, original sin doctrine

as opposed to:

Epistemology, objectivity procedure, logic, scientific observations and answers, observations from non-scientifically-trained individuals, general semantics and possibly even a tentative working hypothesis on metaphysics.