Why can't both co-exist? Perhaps one is the facilitation of the other...
Why can't both co-exist? Perhaps one is the facilitation of the other...
Despite the fact that there are so many different forms of life, fundamentally all life has a couple of things in common - reproduction/replication and metabolism. Interestingly, there is not alot of variation between species on how metaboilic processes work (the biocehmical pathways are pretty much the same). Regarding replication/reproduction, there are only a couple of ways this works. Scientific origin of life theories have to explain how both of these mechanisms (metaboilism and replication) evolved. It is possible that one could have helped promote the other.
I think one of the keys lies in protein catalysts (e.g., ribozyme). Phospholipids are also important. Phospholipids are amphiphatic (because of their structure) and will naturally form cellular membranes as their low energy state. These structures would beneficially protect components such as protein catalysts that became enveloped in the structure. I think these are two of the keys to life. That, and statistics. Given enough possible combinations, you only need one to kick start the process. But that is why I suspect, where there was one, there was probably two or even more.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
I just don't see why there is such polarity between scientific and religious beliefs. If anything, science is the ultimate search FOR God.
Science may disprove various man-created theories of religion (like the age of the our planet or the Earth being the center of the Universe) based on a particular interpretation of the Bible, but it in no way does it, or can it, ever disprove the existence of God. 4 billion years is less than a blink of an eye in relation to eternity, so who knows what went on during the whole creation process!
When religion had a monopoly over thought, you got your thinking bean chopped off for looking for the truth outside of what some man was telling you, no matter how right you were. In my opinion, for a preacher to belittle the findings of science (such as in the study of evolution) because it conflicts with his beliefs is pretty much akin to him wanting to return to those days and be the head bean chopper.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Unbelievably, I met a Ph.D. engineer the other day, who works closely with geological records and a solid understanding of sedimentary deposition timelines, and that person STILL insists on being a literalist. The evidence on the 6000 years thing is so convincing that I just can't understand how someone who is otherwise bright could be so stupid...
Have to make one slight adjustment on this comment. Here, the term "literalists" is probably not the correct term to use. Here is the reason why...
In the 18th century a deepening understanding of the makeup of the earth made it clear that our planet was very old. At that time, many religionists insisted that, according to the Bible, the earth was only 6,000 years old.
This seemed a clear case of a Bible teaching being disproved. The fact is, though, that the Bible nowhere states how old the earth is. It was a misunderstanding on the part of those religionists that caused the problem.
The very first words of the Bible are: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) This statement, that there was a beginning, is in harmony with current scientific observations.
Then, according to the Bible, there was a period when the earth was “formless and waste,” uninhabited and uninhabitable. (Genesis 1:2) Geologists who try to reconstruct the early history of the earth suggest that at one time this was indeed the case.
Following that, the Bible describes how seas and landmasses were formed. Plant life appeared, then sea creatures, birds, and, eventually, land animals. Finally, man himself appeared.
Overall, this is very similar to what scientists have discovered by digging through the old geological strata of the earth, even to the general order of the appearance of life.—Genesis 1:1-28.
Not trying to argue any particular viewpoint, simply that the term "literalists" cannot be used because, again, the Bible does not "literally" state the age of the earth and anyone who says it does is lying or hasn't read it.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Why do people always say "It's not my torch." on message boards?
It is your torch if you are implying that terms in the Genesis account such as "Day" are to be taken literally in all occurrences.
The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods/days. Yet all six of them have apparently ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Ge 1:31)
However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) I believe that this was the passage that you were referring to, Guisslapp.
That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Also indicative of this is Peter’s inspired observation that “one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8) Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands (or more) of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself.
This entire account/passage is a great example of how both creationists and evolutionists failure to understand what is actually written leads to further misunderstanding and prejudice.
It is not my torch because I am the one that understands the Bible is pure fiction. I don't have a dog in this particular fight. I would rather a young earth creationist state why they believe what they believe.
However, when I think "literalist" I think someone that takes what the Bible says on its face (i.e., a day IS a day and not 10,000 years). But I don't really see the point in quibbling over what we define as a "literalist."
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”