• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Just Accidental?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Maybe you could just answer the question. If you think an ant or a tree is so complex that some creator god must have had a hand in it, it's only logical to ask how vastly much more complex this god you believe in must be than a simple tree or a duck.

Since the creator is more than all of his creation combined, he is certainly nothing you could ever describe.....nor can you rule out his existence because you don't have a clue what is "out there". Its the terminology you stumble over. The Creator and his attendants have been placed in the realm of myth and legend...something a scientific mind must reject at all costs. But what if the Creator and his assistants are living beings that share existence along with us, but on a much higher plane? What if we are ants in comparison to them? Are the smartest ants on Earth in a position to doubt that they are the product of a higher power? Can't mere humans alter the genetics of lower creatures? Can't selective breeding produce an animals that are more beneficial or aesthetically pleasing to humans? e.g. horse/donkey....dog and cat breeds? Not accidental, but intelligently planned.

I didn't say anything about certainty.
Facts are certainties, not suggestions. Facts don't change on a whim.

By the way, I know this has been pointed out to you before ... Evolution isn't merely "random chance," because natural selection is not random.

If I gave you 20 cupcakes that all looked delicious but different, and I told you that you can only choose 4, on what basis would you 'select' them?
You have 5 senses to help you determine your choice. These 5 sense are coordinated and processed by an intelligent brain and selection is made by cognitive means.

Out of the genetic material from which all living things are made, how is "selection" made without any intellect guiding the choices?

Genetic mutations are randomly produced. They are not planned. They usually result in a defect, not an enhancement. Beneficial mutations are so rare that they almost never happen.
Natural selection explains only survival of the fittest....it fails to explain how life began. But which of the two questions is the most pressing? How did life begin?...or how did it change over time?

Isn't it the one that tells you how life came into existence....because then you will know why things changed and to what extent and reason the Creator made those changes possible. Human guesswork, designed to eliminate ID could then be completely discounted. Problem solved...no ifs or buts and no suggestions needed. :shrug:
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
How could one designer designs such totally different designs, the patterns of these photos would indicate multiple artists with different profiles and these are just a few of the designs. This is what always gets me about the designer, you have one crazy insane designer whose profile, desire, taste change randomly. Now maybe if there are multiple designers perhaps 1000's for the billions of designed creatures on this earth.
The evidence points to one very creative Designer, since one substance --DNA-- was used in forming these very different organisms.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
How many of these illustrations were fed to school children over the last few decades? o_O

images
or
images
images
or
images

This one could be more valid I think.....
images

Science is often outdated before it even becomes common knowledge. But i meant more that humans and the sort of apes you mean share common ancestry. We weren't an evolutionary extension of a gorilla.


My brain doesn't work like that. I have to know "why" about as many things as I can. The logical things are the most instructive and if someone says "because I suggest that it happened like this and I am a scientist with degrees so you must believe me".....is no reason for me to accept the suggestions of anyone who is trying to feed me bulldust.
cow.gif

A desire for knowledge is a wonderful thing. But that very desire is indicative of our own ignorance. If we knew everything our curiosity would be sated. Instead we yearn to fill the endless gaps in what we know. We can be both curious and honest with ourselves on that.

I don't know of any other species apart from man who has so completely changed his environment to suit himself....do you? Doesn't evolution teach the opposite?

We have the most capacity for change. But that doesn't run contrary to evolutionary theory at all. Why would you think it would?

You know, I see you as an eternal optimist LnM.....do you not watch the news or observe anyone who lives in a seedy neighborhood with seedy neighbors? You seem as if you live far away from any of that, with little contact with the outside world......it seems like a rosy place where nothing bad happens.....don't let word get out because everyone will want to come and live where you do......but it isn't on this planet apparently. Can I come and visit?
4xvim2p.gif

*chuckles*
No one that knows me in RL would consider me at all sheltered. Im an optimist in some ways, but also a somewhat cynical business consultant that travels too much.

I've also lived in at least one place that would put your 'seedy neighbourhoods' to shame in terms of danger and just general terrible living conditions.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Science is often outdated before it even becomes common knowledge. But i meant more that humans and the sort of apes you mean share common ancestry. We weren't an evolutionary extension of a gorilla.
The fact that science cannot even distinguish between a human and an ape in its fossil collection is proof enough for me to "suggest" that humans did not descend from any previous species of anything. I believe that were were created to be what we are....human beings....fully upright, mortal, and always reflecting the intelligence and mental capacity of our Maker.

I don't believe this....
images
or this...
images

is anything but the product of imagination.
I believe that we have regressed, if anything, from the original model.


My brain doesn't work like that. I have to know "why" about as many things as I can. The logical things are the most instructive and if someone says "because I suggest that it happened like this and I am a scientist with degrees so you must believe me".....is no reason for me to accept the suggestions of anyone who is trying to feed me bulldust.
cow.gif

A desire for knowledge is a wonderful thing. But that very desire is indicative of our own ignorance. If we knew everything our curiosity would be sated. Instead we yearn to fill the endless gaps in what we know. We can be both curious and honest with ourselves on that.

Yes, indeed, but there is so much to know and learn. Some individuals devote their entire lives to the study of one just species or subject....imagine what many lifetimes could accomplish in our desire to really know and understand the world around us? The fact that we are curious about other creatures (apart from the fact that we might enjoy them for dinner;) and the fact that we can study nature, ecology and even the universe, is also proof to me that we are very unlike animals. We alone can be taught from a printed page, we have language that is complex and we are able to grasp concepts like past, present and future.....animals have no capacity like ours...not even close. Squirrels have no idea why they collect acorns for the winter. Bears have no idea why they need to hibernate.....birds, marine creatures and land animals do not plan to migrate.....they just do it because they must.

I don't know of any other species apart from man who has so completely changed his environment to suit himself....do you? Doesn't evolution teach the opposite?

We have the most capacity for change. But that doesn't run contrary to evolutionary theory at all. Why would you think it would?

"We have the most capacity for change".....but why? With all the thousands of species of living things on this planet, why did none of them evolve to the same level as we have? Wasn't there enough time? Were their evolutionary requirements somehow less than ours? Why is it that we have no equals? Surely, with all the time that has elapsed, there should be other species which have evolved, at least to our level?

All other species have supposedly adapted to their surroundings....we adapt our surroundings to suit us. Doesn't that make us unique?

You know, I see you as an eternal optimist LnM.....do you not watch the news or observe anyone who lives in a seedy neighborhood with seedy neighbors? You seem as if you live far away from any of that, with little contact with the outside world......it seems like a rosy place where nothing bad happens.....don't let word get out because everyone will want to come and live where you do......but it isn't on this planet apparently. Can I come and visit?
4xvim2p.gif

*chuckles*
No one that knows me in RL would consider me at all sheltered. Im an optimist in some ways, but also a somewhat cynical business consultant that travels too much.

I've also lived in at least one place that would put your 'seedy neighbourhoods' to shame in terms of danger and just general terrible living conditions.

I am surprised, because at times you sound so far removed from RL as I know it. You seem to demonstrate complete trust in man to solve the problems that your own children will face in the future. Is this an Aussie "she'll be right"......or is this more of an ostrich position?

I can see no reason for your optimism if all you have to depend on is other humans with an appalling track record.
The world is waiting with bated breath to see the outcome of the US elections because most are fearful one way or the other that the world will never be quite the same again. It is an interesting time to be alive and one where I am sure that Bible prophesy is unfolding as we speak. Have you ever investigated Bible prophesy LnM? Its fascinating to see how far in advance the things we are experiencing at present, were written.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I am surprised, because at times you sound so far removed from RL as I know it. You seem to demonstrate complete trust in man to solve the problems that your own children will face in the future. Is this an Aussie "she'll be right"......or is this more of an ostrich position?

I think you may be misinterpreting me to some degree, probably due to the sort of topics we discuss.

I think a lot of people are fools or dangerous or blind. What you call optimism is more my belief that the level of this idiocy is no worse than its been in the past. In some areas its even better.

I've lived in a truly primitive society. I've seen the way women were treated within it. Or dwarfs. Or albinos.

I study history too, as I think I've mentioned. Bad as we are, I'm not naieve enough to think I missed the golden age.

And neither am I looking for a magic bullet solution. I don't deny or shirk the problems of the world. I dont set myself apart from its grime. I also dont let my eyes focus solely on the problems, but to also see the good.

I can see no reason for your optimism if all you have to depend on is other humans with an appalling track record.

If I'm to speak bluntly, I think its your worldview that leads you to this pesimism of other humans, more than any blind optimism on my part. I dont wait for the worlds end. And i certainly dont yearn for it.

The world is waiting with bated breath to see the outcome of the US elections because most are fearful one way or the other that the world will never be quite the same again.

You seem to miss this point though. The world will NEVER be the same again. That is true for every moment in history. You think this moment more awesome in it's impact than all those others? Perhaps. Colour me sceptical that Donald Trump losing by a record margin becomes anything more than a footnote in history.

It is an interesting time to be alive and one where I am sure that Bible prophesy is unfolding as we speak. Have you ever investigated Bible prophesy LnM? Its fascinating to see how far in advance the things we are experiencing at present, were written.

I have, although its more a passing interest than serious study. Have you studied events around the turn of the first milenium? You should...it's quite interesting. Had the internet been a thing then, I'm damn sure there would have been people posting about the end of days, the portents evident, etc.
 

AndromedaRXJ

Active Member
You don't think dinosaurs could have feathers? You don't think some creatures flew without them? Don't some creatures fly without them even now?

It's not just the fact that many of them had feathers. It's that the bird-like features become more and more prominent the more recent in time you look. Showing a gradual trend of bird-like features over time suggests evolutionary development. Early feathers were more basic, downy, and less neat. Later in time you get the more refined feathers. That coupled with beaks, wishbones, and other birdlike features being more prominent later in time, suggests evolutionary trend.

Embryology also serves as a summary of a given animal's evolutionary history, and when a bird is in development inside an egg, it goes through it's evolutionary stages. E.g. it momentarily develops teeth, only to then lose them and grow a beak. It develops claws, only to have its fingers fused into a modern bird wing... etc...

And all vertebrates start out with gills as an embryo, only to lose them later.

“Feathers are a little too perfect—that’s the problem,” notes Yale University’s
Manual of Ornithology—Avian Structure and Function. Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.”* Yet, evolutionary theory teaches that feathers must be the result of gradual, cumulative change in earlier skin outgrowths. Moreover, “feathers could not have evolved without some plausible adaptive value in all of the intermediate steps,” says the Manual.

Not true. The earliest feathers weren't as developed as later feathers. They are of a more basic form.

http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm



That is like taking a skeleton and turning it into.....
170px-Brad_Pitt_at_Incirlik2.jpg

Which would be accurate. That's what a human looks like afterall.

Pseudaelurus was a prehistoric cat that lived in Eurasia and North America roughly 20 million years ago. The pseudaelurus had slender proportions and short legs, not unlike a weasel. It died out about 8 million years ago. In scientific literature it's sometimes cited as the basal stock of the Felidae family. Its predecessor was the proailurus, which lived in Eurasia roughly 25 million years ago. The proailurus was slightly bigger than a domestic cat. It had a long tail and probably hung out in trees. Some scientists posit it as the basal stock of the Feliformia superfamily -- this includes Felidae and similar animals -- but other scientists dub it the first true felid."
Do you see again the vague language of "may have's" and "probably's"...."Some scientists" said this....."other scientists" said something else....is this the language of facts?

Exactly what I predicted. The fossil record doesn't give us a clear picture on specific details of animal relationship at a small scale. It gives us the bigger picture though.

The cat mentioned above is a more basic form. That' what's important. All of its cat features are more basic and less developed than modern cats. Cats being more basic and primitive back then, compared to now, suggests that they evolved into their modern forms.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I think you may be misinterpreting me to some degree, probably due to the sort of topics we discuss.

I think a lot of people are fools or dangerous or blind. What you call optimism is more my belief that the level of this idiocy is no worse than its been in the past. In some areas its even better.
Sorry, I was just trying to understand your reasoning.....but I believe that "this level of idiocy" has no excuse in this day and age surely? Have we not supposedly become more civilised after thousands of years of human history? Have we learned nothing from the past? Isn't that why we are doomed to repeat their mistakes? What is our excuse for the level of bloodshed we see today? This is not hand to hand combat, as seen in the past, but killing on a massive scale with heinous weapons and use of technology. The level of evil has escalated with the times. Humans now have the capacity to destroy all life on this planet. Doesn't that raise the bar on the level of idiocy today, somewhat? o_O

I've lived in a truly primitive society. I've seen the way women were treated within it. Or dwarfs. Or albinos.

I have a young nephew with Tourette's and he is mercilessly bullied in our society. It isn't just primitive, it's inexcusable in this day and age.

I study history too, as I think I've mentioned. Bad as we are, I'm not naieve enough to think I missed the golden age.
There has never been a golden age....there has only been relatively short periods of the absence of war.....that isn't real peace as I was raised in the nuclear age and well aware of the ticking of the doomsday clock. :eek:

And neither am I looking for a magic bullet solution. I don't deny or shirk the problems of the world. I dont set myself apart from its grime. I also dont let my eyes focus solely on the problems, but to also see the good.

It is true that we should try to focus on the good, but the media almost exclusively focuses on the negative. This is what the majority of people are fed, day in, day out, and it results in despair particularly among the young. An "eat, drink and be merry" attitude is overplayed every weekend and law enforcement and the medical profession are tired of trying to deal with it. Chemical solutions have just created way more problems than they have solved. Where is the good for them? We all need hope or there is no point to living.

If I'm to speak bluntly, I think its your worldview that leads you to this pesimism of other humans, more than any blind optimism on my part. I dont wait for the worlds end. And i certainly dont yearn for it.

Well, from my perspective, there is a reason why I expect life to be very different from the one I am living at present. It seems that humans have a collective expectation that life should be happy and fulfilling. (Go figure) As we continue to slide into more and more chaos globally, many who have thrown God away, have nowhere to turn. This has to create great uncertainty and concern about the future. It is my belief that if God doesn't end this world, then mankind certainly will.

I would rather leave my future in the hands of someone whom I believe is more powerful than any human ruler, and to trust Him to make decisions about my future. I hate what humans have done to this world and I will welcome what God has planned for the future.

You seem to miss this point though. The world will NEVER be the same again. That is true for every moment in history. You think this moment more awesome in it's impact than all those others? Perhaps. Colour me sceptical that Donald Trump losing by a record margin becomes anything more than a footnote in history.

Whatever the outcome of the present situation, our future is in jeapody under man's rule. What is foretold in scripture is very confronting and I am seeing the fulfillment of prophesy unfolding right now. A time of great trouble is impending and something will be the catalyst for its beginning. We will wait to see what that catalyst will be. The Bible says that the rule of "one world government" is in our future. This is a rule by law that will be enforced rigidly and every freedom of choice that we ever enjoyed will be stripped away unless we toe their line. This is what was recorded in John's Revelation, written almost 2,000 years ago. It has been mooted for decades under many names...."new world order"..."globalisation"....."federalism".....it's coming and it will be presented to the world as a solution to all our problems....it will promise "peace and security", but it will be the beginning of the end for the current world system.

I have, although its more a passing interest than serious study. Have you studied events around the turn of the first milenium? You should...it's quite interesting. Had the internet been a thing then, I'm damn sure there would have been people posting about the end of days, the portents evident, etc.

The events at the turn of the first century are more interesting to me. Everything that transpired after that is just an episode in the unfolding of what was to come...especially in the world of religion, leading us to where we are now. Predictions of the world's end are nothing new......they thought it was impending in the first century. It will come when it is God's time to bring it....but we have never been closer to a "one world government" than we are now.

Secular history can teach us much, but Biblical history can teach us even more, IMO. It reveals more about the "why's" than the "what's" of human behavior and how we can benefit from their experience.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
You may have heard of this guy as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald (a well-known Australian newspaper) and I imagine, in other news media around the world.

Under the heading...
"Dinosaur discovery a world first- and it hails from Australia"
It first of all shows us what this dinosaur looked like....a very impressive computer generated image, isn't it?

1476998477270.png


Then it shows what was unearthed in this exciting find on a farming property in outback Queensland back in 2005.

1476964366640.jpg


Then we have a diagram of what bones were actually found and where in the anatomy of this creature the bones belong...along with the words...."Almost a quarter of the skeleton has been retrieved - making this the third-most complete Australian dinosaur skeleton."

So with imagination running rampant, less than 25% of a skeleton can lead to the first image. o_O

1476964366640.jpg



Hmmmmm. That is a lot of imagination.

The article went on to say...."The bones collected include vertebrae, pelvis, shoulder and limb bones. However there are just a few neck and tail bones, leaving researchers to guess the length these body parts might have been......

"Having gathered almost a quarter of the skeleton, paleontologists were able to build up a picture of what the dinosaur, which belongs to the titanosaurus group, might have looked like......

"These dinosaurs may well have been like walking, fermenting vats," Dr Poropat said. "They could have retained food in their system for up to two weeks in order to extract sufficient nutritional value from their food."

Its ancestors probably came from South America - meaning the Australian dinosaur could provide an explanation as to how and when dinosaurs dispersed across the globe."

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sc...-it-hails-from-australia-20161020-gs6k0k.html


Now I don't know about you, but I find this to be a typical way to "suggest" a lot of things to the general public, that science has no real proof for. This is a con.

It is yet another example of supposition masquerading as fact. Seriously....look at what they have, compared to what they claim.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Just to add.....this dinosaur was supposedly 95 million years old, yet look at the dig site.....

1476964366640.jpg


95 million years is this close to the surface? o_O
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You may have heard of this guy as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald (a well-known Australian newspaper) and I imagine, in other news media around the world.

Under the heading...
"Dinosaur discovery a world first- and it hails from Australia"
It first of all shows us what this dinosaur looked like....a very impressive computer generated image, isn't it?

1476998477270.png


Then it shows what was unearthed in this exciting find on a farming property in outback Queensland back in 2005.

1476964366640.jpg


Then we have a diagram of what bones were actually found and where in the anatomy of this creature the bones belong...along with the words...."Almost a quarter of the skeleton has been retrieved - making this the third-most complete Australian dinosaur skeleton."

So with imagination running rampant, less than 25% of a skeleton can lead to the first image. o_O

1476964366640.jpg



Hmmmmm. That is a lot of imagination.

The article went on to say...."The bones collected include vertebrae, pelvis, shoulder and limb bones. However there are just a few neck and tail bones, leaving researchers to guess the length these body parts might have been......

"Having gathered almost a quarter of the skeleton, paleontologists were able to build up a picture of what the dinosaur, which belongs to the titanosaurus group, might have looked like......

"These dinosaurs may well have been like walking, fermenting vats," Dr Poropat said. "They could have retained food in their system for up to two weeks in order to extract sufficient nutritional value from their food."

Its ancestors probably came from South America - meaning the Australian dinosaur could provide an explanation as to how and when dinosaurs dispersed across the globe."

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sc...-it-hails-from-australia-20161020-gs6k0k.html


Now I don't know about you, but I find this to be a typical way to "suggest" a lot of things to the general public, that science has no real proof for. This is a con.

It is yet another example of supposition masquerading as fact. Seriously....look at what they have, compared to what they claim.
I am a Bones fan and I trust that some research was done to make the show authentic.
Guessing missing skeletal bones is simply Anatomy. They are good at it.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Just to add.....this dinosaur was supposedly 95 million years old, yet look at the dig site.....

1476964366640.jpg


95 million years is this close to the surface? o_O

You're right, they must have died last year given how shallow it is. How do I know this? Because I'm a computer engineer, of course.
 

ftacky

Member
Interesting...
I would have thought it pointed to a common ancestor.

I assume the above statement shows a belief in abiogenesis where nonliving chemicals and materials became a living cell or entity. This is a violation of a basic principle of biology: Nonliving matter will not become living material.

Has anyone here seen or heard of nonliving matter becoming alive?

2 Corinthians 4: The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I assume the above statement shows a belief in abiogenesis where nonliving chemicals and materials became a living cell or entity. This is a violation of a basic principle of biology: Nonliving matter will not become living material.

Has anyone here seen or heard of nonliving matter becoming alive?

Yes. Living cells has already been artificially created from non-living matter from scratch in the lab.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150622154541.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160718160923.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369702116000699

It now simply a matter of finding the right environment in early earth where the processes that create living cells from non living chemicals can occur spontaneously. The most likely place is already known, the porous rocks of undersea volcanic ridges.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
95 million years is this close to the surface? o_O
Why not? Sediment builds up, sediment wears away -- even in the same spot. There are places on Earth where rocks over four billion years lie exposed.
I am a Bones fan and I trust that some research was done to make the show authentic.
Guessing missing skeletal bones is simply Anatomy. They are good at it.
The missing skeleton is extrapolated from other similar specimens, particularly along the same evolutionary line.

Valjean said:
Interesting...
I would have thought it pointed to a common ancestor.

I assume the above statement shows a belief in abiogenesis where nonliving chemicals and materials became a living cell or entity. This is a violation of a basic principle of biology: Nonliving matter will not become living material.

Has anyone here seen or heard of nonliving matter becoming alive?
.
The statement indicates an evidence based belief that organisms ramify into varying forms over time through natural selection.

In re
your leap to abiogenesis: Nonliving matter obviously did become living matter at some point in the planet's evolution. The evidence is all around us. The only dispute is weather life popped fully formed into existence, through magic poofing, or developed gradually, through understandable and observable processes, into structures associated with current life -- self-replicating molecules, semi-permeable membranes, &c, -- combining to form lifelike structures; a sort of semi-life -- self replicating structures with features natural selection could get a grip on.
Once natural selection had something it could work with, it was off to the races. agglomerations we'd recognize as actual organisms soon developed and spread.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Yes. Living cells has already been artificially created from non-living matter from scratch in the lab.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150622154541.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160718160923.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369702116000699

It now simply a matter of finding the right environment in early earth where the processes that create living cells from non living chemicals can occur spontaneously. The most likely place is already known, the porous rocks of undersea volcanic ridges.

LOL...I love the way you say "simply a matter of".....

Here is the conclusion of your last cited article......

"Conclusion and outlook
There have been extensive efforts to construct artificial cells, which have biological cell-like structures and exhibit some of the key characteristics of living biological cells. Artificial cells can be built by a top-down approach, in which the non-essential genes are knocked out from organisms or totally replaced by synthetic ones, or by a bottom-up method, which starts from scratch by assembly of the nonliving materials. The non-typical artificial cells, which are also called ‘cell mimics’, are materials that mimic some properties of biological cells such as surface characteristics, shapes, morphology, or some functions. Despite the impressive progress to date, there is still a wide gap between artificial cells and biological cells. Many issues remain to be solved including: (i) How to make artificial cells communicate efficiently with the environment and with each other? (ii) How to construct artificial cell networks? i.e., how to make artificial cells with different functions work together? (iii) How to improve the replication, division and evolving abilities of artificial cells? And finally, (iv) how to make artificial cells uptake nutrients and move as living organisms? Answering these questions will challenge our technologies as well as our basic understanding of biological cells. Although constructing ‘totally living’ artificial cells is still far-fetched, the progress toward this ultimate goal will likely present many benefits and new applications. Generally speaking, the potential benefits that artificial cells may bring include: (i) providing plausible theory for the origin of life, (ii) providing a less- interfering way to investigate and understand the cellular life, (iii) connecting the non-living to the living world, (iv) replacing engineered organisms to produce pharmaceuticals and fuels, (v) biomedical applications such as replacement or supplement of deficient cells, drug delivery or medical imaging, and (vi) adding new functions that are absent in biological cells. Undoubtedly, further development of artificial cells will bring attractive opportunities to many fields such as biotechnology, medicine, and industry."

Not really "simple" is it? "Far-fetched" seems to describe it well. :D
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Valjean said:
The statement indicates an evidence based belief that organisms ramify into varying forms over time through natural selection.

In re
your leap to abiogenesis: Nonliving matter obviously did become living matter at some point in the planet's evolution. The evidence is all around us. The only dispute is weather life popped fully formed into existence, through magic poofing, or developed gradually, through understandable and observable processes, into structures associated with current life -- self-replicating molecules, semi-permeable membranes, &c, -- combining to form lifelike structures; a sort of semi-life -- self replicating structures with features natural selection could get a grip on.

Doesn't evolution assume that life "poofed" into existence at some point? or do you think "Popped fully formed into existence" sounds more like a scientific explanation to the readers here? o_O

You have no idea how life began, so I believe that disqualifies you from making statements as if they are irrefutable. You have no proof that life appeared gradually due to natural selection or any other "suggested" method. You have guesses, not facts backed up by real evidence.

Once natural selection had something it could work with, it was off to the races. agglomerations we'd recognize as actual organisms soon developed and spread.

Gotta hand it to "Mother Nature"....she is almost as good a miracle worker as my Creator God. :rolleyes:
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Sorry, I was just trying to understand your reasoning.....but I believe that "this level of idiocy" has no excuse in this day and age surely?

No need to apologise, I like straight forward comments, and I dont think anything is personal. Just trying to understand each other a touch better.


Excuse? That's not my point. There have been rapists (for example) forever, and I'm not about to excuse any of them. Just as I don't think thecworld is sliding into a moral abyss

Have we not supposedly become more civilised after thousands of years of human history? Have we learned nothing from the past? Isn't that why we are doomed to repeat their mistakes? What is our excuse for the level of bloodshed we see today?

We've had this conversation before but it always confuses me a little. When you say 'civilised' I'm not sure what you mean. I would assume you're not the sort to confuse scientific advancement with moral advancement. Right?

To my mind, in terms of science and technology it is easy to build on the knowledge of our mothers and fathers. We stand on the shoulders of giants. But morality is taught from scratch to each generation, with varying success.

It doesn't surprise me that we've made major advances in technology, and limited advances in morality.

Factor in the subjectivity of morality and the ground is even muddier.

This is not hand to hand combat, as seen in the past, but killing on a massive scale with heinous weapons and use of technology. The level of evil has escalated with the times. Humans now have the capacity to destroy all life on this planet. Doesn't that raise the bar on the level of idiocy today, somewhat? o_O

Nope. Same level of idiocy is capable of causing more damage.

I have a young nephew with Tourette's and he is mercilessly bullied in our society. It isn't just primitive, it's inexcusable in this day and age.

Firstly, your nephew has my sincere best wishes. When I was a primary teacher in particular I saw this, and was as strong as I could be in terms of discipline and education to help.

When I lived in Papua New Guinea, the conversation I had with my 8 and 9 year olds wasn't about extreme bullying, but instead actual violence. They were stoning a local hermit due to his dwarfism, which marked him as a 'sorcerer'.

I also saw the aftermath of a woman accused of witchery. That was not pleasant. I think sometimes people have romantic delusions of a 'simpler time'. But were I a group suffering from a bitth defect or disability, I'd prefer the modern society, for all that it's behaviour can be reprehensible, to a primitive one. My only 'optimism' around this is that we might beca little better at this with each passing generation. Unfortunately for your nephew, true progress is horribly slow.

There has never been a golden age....there has only been relatively short periods of the absence of war.....that isn't real peace as I was raised in the nuclear age and well aware of the ticking of the doomsday clock. :eek:

My point exactly.

It is true that we should try to focus on the good, but the media almost exclusively focuses on the negative. This is what the majority of people are fed, day in, day out, and it results in despair particularly among the young.

Not just the media. We all do a disservice to the young if we teach them to see the world through our own personal scars.

Would you believe there are even posters here who are quite negative about our world???
;)

An "eat, drink and be merry" attitude is overplayed every weekend and law enforcement and the medical profession are tired of trying to deal with it. Chemical solutions have just created way more problems than they have solved. Where is the good for them? We all need hope or there is no point to living.

Hope? Maybe...
To my mind that can be part of the problem. I'm all for escapism, and think it's important for our sanity. But people who aren't aware of when or why they are escaping end up causing themselves and others serious problems in my experience. I see resilience as an important skill we should be developing in the young, moreso than 'hope'.

I would rather leave my future in the hands of someone whom I believe is more powerful than any human ruler, and to trust Him to make decisions about my future. I hate what humans have done to this world and I will welcome what God has planned for the future.

I know your beliefs include explanation for why this all powerful God has allowed things to become a mess (to your mind) but will ultimately fix them. Regardless of that, your worldview absolutely mandates that ANY level of pain and suffering in the world is pointed to as a sign of our inability to manage ourselves as well as God.

It's a self-fulfilling way of examining the world which means you'll always focus on the lack of perfection.

Whatever the outcome of the present situation, our future is in jeapody under man's rule.

Our future is always in jeopardy. It always has been, man's rule or no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top