+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 256

Thread: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

  1. #31
    Champ RhythmDawg has a reputation beyond reputeRhythmDawg has a reputation beyond reputeRhythmDawg has a reputation beyond reputeRhythmDawg has a reputation beyond reputeRhythmDawg has a reputation beyond reputeRhythmDawg has a reputation beyond reputeRhythmDawg has a reputation beyond reputeRhythmDawg has a reputation beyond reputeRhythmDawg has a reputation beyond reputeRhythmDawg has a reputation beyond reputeRhythmDawg has a reputation beyond repute RhythmDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ruston, LA
    Posts
    6,114

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Why can't both co-exist? Perhaps one is the facilitation of the other...

  2. #32
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,875

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Quote Originally Posted by Yarfunkle View Post
    Wouldn't those starting points be preceded by a single occurrence though? I don't think the trunk of the tree is ness. a single point of origin, but simply representing the event that caused bacteria and such to transpire.
    Quote Originally Posted by FishingBack View Post
    It is quite the leap of faith in itself to believe that bacteria appeared out of nothing randomly and evolved into humans.

    I believe we should get more evidence.
    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.”

  3. #33
    Champ DawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond repute DawgyNWindow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Middle Tennessee
    Posts
    5,304

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    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.

  4. #34
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,875

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Quote Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow View Post
    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.
    Because some people are Biblical literalists and believe Earth has only been around for 6000 years.
    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.”

  5. #35
    Big Dog Yarfunkle is a jewel in the roughYarfunkle is a jewel in the roughYarfunkle is a jewel in the roughYarfunkle is a jewel in the roughYarfunkle is a jewel in the roughYarfunkle is a jewel in the roughYarfunkle is a jewel in the roughYarfunkle is a jewel in the roughYarfunkle is a jewel in the roughYarfunkle is a jewel in the roughYarfunkle is a jewel in the rough
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    996

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    Because some people are Biblical literalists and believe Earth has only been around for 6000 years.

  6. #36
    2011 Pick 'Em Champion johnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond repute johnnylightnin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Shreevesburg
    Posts
    29,338

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    Because some people are Biblical literalists and believe Earth has only been around for 6000 years.
    Even most young earth creationists believe in some type of biological change over time.

    For the record, it sucks that y'all get to the interesting stuff while I'm busy!
    Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle

  7. #37
    Champ Bigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond repute Bigdog13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Keller, Texas
    Posts
    16,450

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    Because some people are Biblical literalists and believe Earth has only been around for 6000 years.

    The Bible speaks of time being measured differently for God than it is for us so personally I don't see how any Christian can be so rigid about the 6000 year thing.

  8. #38
    Champ randerizer is a jewel in the roughranderizer is a jewel in the roughranderizer is a jewel in the roughranderizer is a jewel in the roughranderizer is a jewel in the roughranderizer is a jewel in the roughranderizer is a jewel in the roughranderizer is a jewel in the roughranderizer is a jewel in the roughranderizer is a jewel in the roughranderizer is a jewel in the rough randerizer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,452

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    Because some people are Biblical literalists and believe Earth has only been around for 6000 years.
    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...

  9. #39
    Champ bulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the rough bulldog_in_baton_rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    1,033

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    Because some people are Biblical literalists and believe Earth has only been around for 6000 years.
    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.

  10. #40
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,875

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Quote Originally Posted by bulldog_in_baton_rouge View Post
    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.
    This is not my torch to carry, but I am pretty sure the Bible says that God rested on the 7th day - after he created everything, including man.
    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.”

  11. #41
    Champ TYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53,273

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog13 View Post
    The Bible speaks of time being measured differently for God than it is for us so personally I don't see how any Christian can be so rigid about the 6000 year thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by bulldog_in_baton_rouge View Post
    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.
    FWIW, as a geologist and a Christian I agree with the two posts above. To me the important thing is that GOD created it and I believe it.

  12. #42
    Champ TYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53,273

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    This is not my torch to carry, but I am pretty sure the Bible says that God rested on the 7th day - after he created everything, including man.
    I'm sure that's what BIBR meant as well.

  13. #43
    Champ Bigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond reputeBigdog13 has a reputation beyond repute Bigdog13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Keller, Texas
    Posts
    16,450

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    This is not my torch to carry, but I am pretty sure the Bible says that God rested on the 7th day - after he created everything, including man.
    A day to God might be 10,000 years to you and I.

  14. #44
    Champ bulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the roughbulldog_in_baton_rouge is a jewel in the rough bulldog_in_baton_rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    1,033

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    This is not my torch to carry, but I am pretty sure the Bible says that God rested on the 7th day - after he created everything, including man.
    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.

  15. #45
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,875

    Re: Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

    Quote Originally Posted by bulldog_in_baton_rouge View Post
    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.”

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts