Which came first? plants or animals?

[[serious]]

Yes, bacteria. And things do feed on that bacteria.

I seem to recall reading about a sulfur reducing bacteria (or archaea) that lived in acidic pools deep in caves which had no other species detected. They appeared to be a stable single species biome. I'll see if I can dig up an article about them.

EDIT: Not seeing anything. Might be remembering wrong.

However, there is nothing that would prevent a microculture from maintaining it's own population. I do it with yeast every time I make beer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You need to get out more maybe?

Direct from the Wiki page on hydrothermal vents:

It's funny because the same article also explains how the discovery of these eco-systems have given us new insights on how life might have originated on this planet.

Is that why you just copy-pasted the bits that you can use to support your argument, without actually posting a link to the article? Hoping nobody would look it up so they could read that stuff?

Count on a creationist to engage in selective reading...

 

[EternalDragon]

It's funny because the same article also explains how the discovery of these eco-systems have given us new insights on how life might have originated on this planet.

Is that why you just copy-pasted the bits that you can use to support your argument, without actually posting a link to the article? Hoping nobody would look it up so they could read that stuff?

Count on a creationist to engage in selective reading...

Well, there is fact and then there is assumption. You seem to be confusing them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, there is fact and then there is assumption. You seem to be confusing them.

And there's reading and selective reading.

I guess quoting Wikipedia is ok as long as you can use it to support whatever point you are trying to make. But the second it goes against some of your a priori beliefs, then suddenly it's not a worthy source anymore ha?

Here's some other facts from Wikipedia:

Evolutionary history of plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EternalDragon]

Says the guy who thought it was possible to get more than 300 on an IQ test.

Anyway, as interesting as that is, the point of my post still remains - it's moot. None of that stuff erases the fact that the bacteria themselves don't rely on food or light.

I have no idea what you are talking about with the IQ test. You must have me confused with someone else.

 

[EternalDragon]

And there's reading and selective reading.

I guess quoting Wikipedia is ok as long as you can use it to support whatever point you are trying to make. But the second it goes against some of your a priori beliefs, then suddenly it's not a worthy source anymore ha?

Here's some other facts from Wikipedia:

Evolutionary history of plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And all of those hold as much weight as The Prince and the Frog.

Or this comic book.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, there is fact and then there is assumption. You seem to be confusing them.

You have been the one confusing the two for many months now.

 

[stellasaranya]

Hey buddy
I suggest you start reading Genesis 1 onward...
Definitely clears up your doubts of 'origin of life' . Don't trust science on this one subject
But in The infinite wisdom of God

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey buddy

Are you talking to me, or someone else?

 

[HitchSlap]

Hey buddy
I suggest you start reading Genesis 1 onward...
Definitely clears up your doubts of 'origin of life' . Don't trust science on this one subject
But in The infinite wisdom of God

You seem to be running fast and loose with your usage of the word "infinite," aren't you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hey buddy
I suggest you start reading Genesis 1 onward...
Definitely clears up your doubts of 'origin of life' . Don't trust science on this one subject
But in The infinite wisdom of God

Why can't the evidence found in the world around us be trusted?

 

[KWCrazy]

And there's reading and selective reading.

No. People use links and quotes that support their position and do not use quotes which do not. For example, people who don't worship at the throne of Darwinism understand that there are serious problems with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionary biologists acknowledge these problems and then offer their opinions of a possible resolution. While we don't agree with the proposed answer, we can still source the author as someone who at least acknowledges the problem. Since you don't give credence to creationists who point out evolution's failings, we post the words of experts in the field who confirm the issue. You then call it "quote mining" because we didn't include the OPINION of the one quoted. That was never the case. We aren't here to make our arguments and yours as well.

That's the problem with debating atheists. They have no foundation in reality because what they claim to be reality is a temporary physical existence. They can't think beyond the limitations of the physical world because they don't acknowledge any power higher than themselves. They demand natural proof of the supernatural and conclude, when it isn't provided, that the supernatural doesn't exist. By definition the supernatural can have no natural validation. Therefore they are demanding something which they know cannot exist. That's like going to middle of the desert and demanding a jet ski rental, then throwing a fit when it doesn't happen. It makes them look petulant and immature.

 

[Split Rock]

No. People use links and quotes that support their position and do not use quotes which do not. For example, people who don't worship at the throne of Darwinism understand that there are serious problems with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionary biologists acknowledge these problems and then offer their opinions of a possible resolution. While we don't agree with the proposed answer, we can still source the author as someone who at least acknowledges the problem. Since you don't give credence to creationists who point out evolution's failings, we post the words of experts in the field who confirm the issue. You then call it "quote mining" because we didn't include the OPINION of the one quoted. That was never the case. We aren't here to make our arguments and yours as well.

Quote mining is when one takes a particular part of a quote out of context and then tries to imply the author said something he did not. Darwin's quote about the eye is a good example. Creationists cut out the part where he sets up the question and ignore the part where he answers it. This has the intentional effect of making it seem like Darwin was claiming the eye cannot be explained by his theory.

That's the problem with debating atheists. They have no foundation in reality because what they claim to be reality is a temporary physical existence.

Even if physical existance is temporary, it does not mean it is not reality.

They can't think beyond the limitations of the physical world because they don't acknowledge any power higher than themselves. They demand natural proof of the supernatural and conclude, when it isn't provided, that the supernatural doesn't exist. By definition the supernatural can have no natural validation. Therefore they are demanding something which they know cannot exist. That's like going to middle of the desert and demanding a jet ski rental, then throwing a fit when it doesn't happen. It makes them look petulant and immature.

We demand natural proof for the physical and natural. The earth and life on it are included.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. People use links and quotes that support their position and do not use quotes which do not. For example, people who don't worship at the throne of Darwinism understand that there are serious problems with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionary biologists acknowledge these problems and then offer their opinions of a possible resolution. While we don't agree with the proposed answer, we can still source the author as someone who at least acknowledges the problem. Since you don't give credence to creationists who point out evolution's failings, we post the words of experts in the field who confirm the issue. You then call it "quote mining" because we didn't include the OPINION of the one quoted. That was never the case. We aren't here to make our arguments and yours as well.

That's the problem with debating atheists. They have no foundation in reality because what they claim to be reality is a temporary physical existence. They can't think beyond the limitations of the physical world because they don't acknowledge any power higher than themselves. They demand natural proof of the supernatural and conclude, when it isn't provided, that the supernatural doesn't exist. By definition the supernatural can have no natural validation. Therefore they are demanding something which they know cannot exist. That's like going to middle of the desert and demanding a jet ski rental, then throwing a fit when it doesn't happen. It makes them look petulant and immature.

Even the biblical authors admit that there is no god.

"There is no God."--Psalms 14:1

If you weren't worshipping at the altar of the Bible, you would see that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Even the biblical authors admit that there is no god.

"There is no God."--Psalms 14:1

If you weren't worshipping at the altar of the Bible, you would see that.

Is that a quote mine?

 

[Loudmouth]

Is that a quote mine?

[sarcasm]NEVER!!![/sarcasm]

 

[PsychoSarah]

[sarcasm]NEVER!!![/sarcasm]

I am actually shocked that line exists in the bible, or is a a part of a sentence?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why can't the evidence found in the world around us be trusted?

Because the creator of that evidence apparently isn't trustworthy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, bacteria.

Then terrestrial ecosystems don't need light, they just need PLANTS.

 

[Loudmouth]

You need to get out more maybe?

Direct from the Wiki page on hydrothermal vents:

The ecosystem so formed is reliant upon the continued existence of the hydrothermal vent field as the primary source of energy, which differs from most surface life on Earth, which is based on solar energy. However, although it is often said that these communities exist independently of the sun, some of the organisms are actually dependent upon oxygen produced by photosynthetic organisms, while others are anaerobic.

The bacteria metabolize the hydrogen sulfide found in the materials spewing out of the smokers. That forms the base of their ecosystem, not light. It is no different than plants getting high energy electrons from the absorbance of photons.