Specific Question on Evolution...

sbbqb7n16

Veteran - Blue Bible Dude
Jan 13, 2002
2,532
177
38
Texas
Visit site
✟25,010.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by Cantuar

No, there's no way to prove it, but science isn't about proof.

Oh it's not......Which would make it about faith, no? Isn't that kinda what religion is all about? And that would make science a religion and subject to all the same sorts of scoffing and mockery that other religions are given. Plus that would desimate the word atheism/ atheist, because they would now have a "god" to believe in. Science would no longer be true, but everything would be relative and nothing would be true anymore. And nothing could be proven at all.

 

Remember Satan is the father of all lies, and in him there is no truth. This would play perfectly into what he would want, no? Making everything relative and hiding the truth. But that's a different discussion in and of itself...
 
Upvote 0

sbbqb7n16

Veteran - Blue Bible Dude
Jan 13, 2002
2,532
177
38
Texas
Visit site
✟25,010.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Then what is evidence....if neither proof nor faith.

And how do you know anything then? Nothing is ever proven then

And also in that case, there is plenty of "evidence" in the issue of a creator, so why would you doubt that? Evidence supports the case quite substantially... Even sworn affadavits from the Creator Himself. :)
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
But nonetheless it is still an assumption and in no way rules out the existence of a creator, or shows an exact path where things came from. It is all speculation as of right now and has no firm foundation.

I never said it di eliminate or even threaten God, I'm a Christian too and so are a few others in here that try to clear up the misconceptions and fear some have of science.

God said to look to nature to find evidence of his glory. When you look to nature you find things are a little different than the simple explanations given to the Hebrew people thousands of years ago, but they are even more beautiful and complex and give even greater glory to God. Creation from the begining to now may have taken more than six thousand years, but isn't paitence one of the attributes of God? Impatiance and wanting simple answers is a human failing, not Gods.

Some may not see it that way but I cannot see how the universe full of wonders no matter how it came about can detract from the glory of God.

Why can't God love me if I evolved? Why can't God create through science?

Science asks only how it happened, the why is left up to religion.
 
Upvote 0

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
42
Visit site
✟17,374.00
I knew this article would come in handy one day: :)

Nature 396, 133 - 140 (1998)

The genome sequence of Rickettsia prowazekii and the origin of mitochondria

SIV G. E. ANDERSSON*, ALIREZA ZOMORODIPOUR*, JAN O. ANDERSSON*, THOMAS SICHERITZ-PONTÉN*, U. CECILIA M. ALSMARK*, RAF M. PODOWSKI*, A. KRISTINA NÄSLUND*, ANN-SOFIE ERIKSSON*, HERBERT H. WINKLER† & CHARLES G. KURLAND*

* Department of Molecular Biology, University of Uppsala, Uppsala S-75124, Sweden
† Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama 36688, USA

Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to C.G.K.
(e-mail: chuck@xray.bmc.uu.se).

We describe here the complete genome sequence (1,111,523 base pairs) of the obligate intracellular parasite Rickettsia prowazekii, the causative agent of epidemic typhus. This genome contains 834 protein-coding genes. The functional profiles of these genes show similarities to those of mitochondrial genes: no genes required for anaerobic glycolysis are found in either R. prowazekii or mitochondrial genomes, but a complete set of genes encoding components of the tricarboxylic acid cycle and the respiratory-chain complex is found in R. prowazekii. In effect, ATP production in Rickettsia is the same as that in mitochondria. Many genes involved in the biosynthesis and regulation of biosynthesis of amino acids and nucleosides in free-living bacteria are absent from R. prowazekii and mitochondria. Such genes seem to have been replaced by homologues in the nuclear (host) genome. The R. prowazekii genome contains the highest proportion of non-coding DNA (24%) detected so far in a microbial genome. Such non-coding sequences may be degraded remnants of 'neutralized' genes that await elimination from the genome. Phylogenetic analyses indicate that R. prowazekii is more closely related to mitochondria than is any other microbe studied so far.

The Rickettsia are alpha-proteobacteria that multiply in eukaryotic cells only. R. prowazekii is the agent of epidemic, louse-borne typhus in humans. Three features of this endocellular parasite deserve our attention. First, R. prowazekii is estimated to have infected 20–30 million humans in the wake of the First World War and killed another few million following the Second World War (ref. 1). Because it is the descendent of free-living organisms2-4, its genome provides insight into adaptations to the obligate intracellular lifestyle, with probable practical value. Second, phylogenetic analyses based on sequences of ribosomal RNA and heat-shock proteins indicate that mitochondria may be derived from the alpha-proteobacteria5,6. Indeed, the closest extant relatives of the ancestor to mitochondria seem to be the Rickettsia 7-10. That modern Rickettsia favour an intracellular lifestyle identifies these bacteria as the sort of organism that might have initiated the endosymbiotic scenario leading to modern mitochondria11. Finally, the genome of R. prowazekii is a small one, containing only 1,111,523 base pairs (bp). Its phylogenetic placement and many other characteristics identify it as a descendant of bacteria with substantially larger genomes2-4. Thus Rickettsia, like mitochondria, are good examples of highly derived genomes, the products of several types of reductive evolution.

very interesting stuff, certainly excellent evidence to support the theory that mitochondria are bacterial in origin
 
Upvote 0

Cantuar

Forever England
Jul 15, 2002
1,085
4
69
Visit site
✟8,889.00
Faith
Agnostic
Because it is the descendent of free-living organisms2-4, its genome provides insight into adaptations to the obligate intracellular lifestyle, with probable practical value. Second, phylogenetic analyses based on sequences of ribosomal RNA and heat-shock proteins indicate that mitochondria may be derived from the alpha-proteobacteria5,6. Indeed, the closest extant relatives of the ancestor to mitochondria seem to be the Rickettsia 7-10. That modern Rickettsia favour an intracellular lifestyle identifies these bacteria as the sort of organism that might have initiated the endosymbiotic scenario leading to modern mitochondria11. Finally, the genome of R. prowazekii is a small one, containing only 1,111,523 base pairs (bp). Its phylogenetic placement and many other characteristics identify it as a descendant of bacteria with substantially larger genomes2-4. Thus Rickettsia, like mitochondria, are good examples of highly derived genomes, the products of several types of reductive evolution.

Yes, extremely interesting.
 
Upvote 0

sbbqb7n16

Veteran - Blue Bible Dude
Jan 13, 2002
2,532
177
38
Texas
Visit site
✟25,010.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Or shows a basic similar design.... you pick... evidence either way....

And Lewis... what do you make of "God formed man from the dust of the ground"->Genesis 2:7 Does that compliment evolution? Or does it show design? The Bible is the Word of God and therefore infallible, meaning that man came from dust not monkeys or some common ancestor. Those are two VERY different Hebrew statements
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
Or shows a basic similar design.... you pick... evidence either way....

And Lewis... what do you make of "God formed man from the dust of the ground"->Genesis 2:7 Does that compliment evolution? Or does it show design? The Bible is the Word of God and therefore infallible, meaning that man came from dust not monkeys or some common ancestor. Those are two VERY different Hebrew statements

Dust = very small particles.

Aboigenesis = small particals combining to form more complex ones and eventualy life.

Evolution = Life changing into all the forms we see today.

Dust + Abiogenesis + Evolution = Man is formed out of dust.

God just stated the scientific theory of the origin of life beautifly.

:)
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
The Bible is the Word of God and therefore infallible...

Who says? Not my Bible. Jesus is the Word of God. "The Bible" as we know it didn't exist for them - so how could the biblical writers say such a thing?


meaning that man came from dust not monkeys or some common ancestor. Those are two VERY different Hebrew statements

It's metaphorical! God created man from inanimate objects, he *created* life. Is that so hard to understand? I'll tell you what would have been hard to understand for the Hebrews - God telling them that he made them from monkeys and, further back still, single-cell organisms (neither of which they were familiar with). So he didn't tell them like that. It was enough to say that God created man, from raw materials.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sbbqb7n16

Veteran - Blue Bible Dude
Jan 13, 2002
2,532
177
38
Texas
Visit site
✟25,010.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Or if dust means dirt, hence small particles yes. And then God forms a man out of this dust, small particles. Then God breathes life into this formed being. Not evolves. Then (in verse 8) God immediately takes this same formed creature and places him in a garden which had already been planted. Then the garden grew multiple plants at once in verse 9. Taking all the time required for your abiogenesis out of the way. Where is the time required at now? And where was the evolution in verse 7? I never read anything about it...

Sorry Christian evolution is a silly thing to me...it makes no sense and takes all the God out of something which we are supposed to put all the God into we can...
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
It's fine if you think it's silly. I personally think it's rather silly to put one's head in the sand and deny that science has evidence of evolution in order to keep hold of my magical view of the Bible as a "signed affidavit by the Creator." It makes no sense "to put all the God into" where he already is:

The Bible says God created the world in six days
Observation of God's creation shows that evolution occurred
It couldn't have happened unsupervised
The Bible is right in a metaphorical sense.

It's completely understandable to me. I didn't say that Genesis is a parable or allegory of what happened (every event, object, person has a metaphorical equivalent). It's a somewhat figurative way to understand the origin of the earth and nature.

What's not understandable is why, if God wanted to just *poof* everything into existence, did he wait six days to complete it. I think that's just the Hebrew myth's way of telling us he chose not to just *poof* it into existence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
  YEC seems to be a theology that straitjackets God. In all honesty, every YEC I meet seems to think God isn't any more clever than he or she is, and that God isn't capable of anything more than brute literalism.

   Do you have a vested interest in God being blunt, always literal, and incapable of any sort of subtlety or elegance?

  *Poofing* things into existance is about the most brute and inelegant solution you could come up with. It's the way children think the world works.

 
 
Upvote 0

sbbqb7n16

Veteran - Blue Bible Dude
Jan 13, 2002
2,532
177
38
Texas
Visit site
✟25,010.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Who says? Not my Bible. Jesus is the Word of God. "The Bible" as we know it didn't exist for them - so how could the biblical writers say such a thing?
Glad to see your great faith in the Bible... I'm sure that makes God very glad... Plus Moses wrote the Genesis account Numbers 12:6-8

It's metaphorical! God created man from inanimate objects, he *created* life. Is that so hard to understand? I'll tell you what would have been hard to understand for the Hebrews - God telling them that he made them from monkeys and, further back still, single-cell organisms (neither of which they were familiar with). So he didn't tell them like that. It was enough to say that God created man, from raw materials.

"Who says?" What's metaphorical about it? I suppose that the man He created was metaphorical as well? And the rib he took to form Eve...that was metaphorical? It wasn't a real rib....it was a fake one! :sigh: And the garden He placed them in was metaphorical too? That's awfully funny... the Hebrew word used for "formed" is "yatsar-> to form/fashion" kinda like a potter takes clay and makes it into something. God fashion formed a man out of the dust of the ground just as He would a clay jar from the same dirt. And if I'm not mistaken, people knew what monkeys were. Genesis wasn't written before Adam, rather it was written later on. Who do you think wrote it? And Adam's job was to name all the animals..so... I think they'd know, plus the whole Noah thing...don't assert your opinions as fact like that. Especially about the Bible-> which is true by the way...
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If Adam named all the animals, why are there so many animals in the world for which there was no name in any of the early languages?

I think the rib was, indeed, metaphorical; it makes no sense, but it's good myth. "Made another one from a bone" is a common theme in lots of myths.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sbbqb7n16

Veteran - Blue Bible Dude
Jan 13, 2002
2,532
177
38
Texas
Visit site
✟25,010.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by seebs
If Adam named all the animals, why are there so many animals in the world for which there was no name in any of the early languages?

Maybe there was but they lost sight of the animal and forgot...

I think the rib was, indeed, metaphorical; it makes no sense, but it's good myth. "Made another one from a bone" is a common theme in lots of myths.

Metaphorical for.... a pig? Like baby-back "ribs"? Come on! There's no mistaking that one...
 
Upvote 0