The Big Bang Theory

[Psudopod]

Organic material in comets is NOT besides the point. Organic material exists in cosmic dust. No light from any sun is needed for its formation. And organic material makes cell.

Organic material makes up the cell, but the organic material found on comets etc is not cells.

 

[Psudopod]

Here we go --- you have no clue what it's saying in English, but by golly, you'll surely educate me in what it's saying in Hebrew, won't you? For your information, I'm a KJVO; so spare me your knowledge of Hebrew and/or Greek, will you please? Go impress TE's and Charismatics with your speaking in tongues skills --- they'll fall for it --- I won't.

If the bible is God's inerrant and unchanging word, then why is that things are lost in translation?

 

[juvenissun]

They probably wont have plants or animals. they will have different categories altogether.

Interesting. What's in your mind?

 

[juvenissun]

And why are you equating organic materials to life?

I don't believe you said this. What is your idea on the origin of life? Are you a creationist?

 

[juvenissun]

Organic material makes up the cell, but the organic material found on comets etc is not cells.

IS not cell. How do you know it WAS not a cell? If you toasted a cell, is it still a cell?

 

[juvenissun]

Nope. Photosynthesis didn't evolve for quite some time. The first organisms were anaerobic, and remained so for a very long time. And even then, plants are eukaryotes, so even by the loosest possible definition we're talking a relatively recent evolution.

You are wrong. Check this on yourself. Info in the Wikipedia would be enough. Search the "oldest plant cell".

 

[atomweaver]

Nope. Photosynthesis didn't evolve for quite some time. The first organisms were anaerobic, and remained so for a very long time. And even then, plants are eukaryotes, so even by the loosest possible definition we're talking a relatively recent evolution.

You are wrong. Check this on yourself. Info in the Wikipedia would be enough. Search the "oldest plant cell".

You are vague. Chalnoth made several points supporting the fact that photosynthesis didn't evolve for quite some time. 1) first organisms were anaerobic 2) they remained so for a very long time 3) plants are eukaryotes, and are 4) a relatively recent evolution (relative, specifically, to the duration of non-plant life that preceded plant evolution). Which one are you referring to?

I did your "oldest plant cell" search, and got "first plant" fossil evidence in the timeframe of 475 to 425 mya. So, what's your point?

 

[Naraoia]

Waitwaitwait... Chalnoth is right in that the first cell wasn't a plant cell. But still my analness module had to chime in (ehh... ). First, plants =/= photosynthesis. Just look at the number of photosynthetic eukaryotes that aren't technically plants (red and brown algae, euglenids, etc), but plenty of bacteria also do it.

Second, being anaerobic also doesn't exclude photosynthesis. Check out purple sulphur bacteria, for example.

(EDIT: and AFAIK plants owe their photosynthesis to cyanobacteria anyway.)

You are vague. Chalnoth made several points supporting the fact that photosynthesis didn't evolve for quite some time. 1) first organisms were anaerobic 2) they remained so for a very long time 3) plants are eukaryotes, and are 4) a relatively recent evolution (relative, specifically, to the duration of non-plant life that preceded plant evolution). Which one are you referring to?

I did your "oldest plant cell" search, and got "first plant" fossil evidence in the timeframe of 475 to 425 mya. So, what's your point?

 

[Baggins]

How many suns in the universe? Why should it have to be ours?

Because the others are too far away to allow plants to photosynthesise.

This is like talking to a child Juvenissun, do you think before posting these questions?

What's next, are you going to enter Dadworld and claim other stars were a lot closer 6000 years ago?

 

[Baggins]

Wrong. The first cell on the Earth (or in the solar system) was probably plant cell.

Sometimes I think you either enjoy being ridiculed or that you must be an elaborate hoax.

The first cell on Earth, as someone else has probably pointed out by now, wasn't even an Eukaryote let alone a plant cell.

Seriously, do you ever just check up on what you are going to post or do you just think it doesn't matter that you are shown to be wrong on simple fact after simple fact?

And you claim to be some sort of teacher/scientist/lecturer/geologist combination.

I would have more self respect than that.

 

[Chalnoth]

First, plants =/= photosynthesis.

Yeah, definitely. I guess I didn't make that point adequately.

Second, being anaerobic also doesn't exclude photosynthesis. Check out purple sulphur bacteria, for example.

Ahh, didn't even think about that. But I suppose it does make sense: since early-on all bacteria were anaerobic, clearly the first organisms with photosynthesis also would have been. Organisms that have both photosynthesis and an aerobic metabolism would only have evolved later.

 

[juvenissun]

You are vague. Chalnoth made several points supporting the fact that photosynthesis didn't evolve for quite some time. 1) first organisms were anaerobic 2) they remained so for a very long time 3) plants are eukaryotes, and are 4) a relatively recent evolution (relative, specifically, to the duration of non-plant life that preceded plant evolution). Which one are you referring to?

I did your "oldest plant cell" search, and got "first plant" fossil evidence in the timeframe of 475 to 425 mya. So, what's your point?

I am not a biologist. But this is what I can find easily:

Fossils of what are thought to be filamentous photosynthetic organisms have been dated at 3.4 billion years old.

 

[Chalnoth]

Photosynthesis =/= plants.

That would have been an early photosynthetic bacteria (or archaea, not sure which). Big difference.

 

[juvenissun]

Photosynthesis =/= plants.

That would have been an early photosynthetic bacteria (or archaea, not sure which). Big difference.

Nobody said photosynthesis = plants. You said that.

Back to the issue: plants created before the sun IS correct.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Back to the issue: plants created before the sun IS correct.

Plants before the sun my ar$e; that is as crazy a statement as you have ever made.
You are not interested in science, you are not interested in the truth, all you are interested in is trying to shore up a Bronze Aged text written by folks who knew next to nothing of the natural world and your goal is to keep it that way.

You even come here and blatantly lie; call yourself a geologist, lying for your prophet, how noble of you.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I am not a biologist. But this is what I can find easily:

This is how you see geology

What ignorance.

 

[Chalnoth]

Nobody said photosynthesis = plants. You said that.

No I didn't. Though I may have incorrectly implied it, I clarified the point a couple of posts up.

Back to the issue: plants created before the sun IS correct.

Well, it's an accurate reading of Genesis 1. But it is a fundamental impossibility when compared against the harsh nature of reality.

 

[Naraoia]

Photosynthesis =/= plants.

That would have been an early photosynthetic bacteria (or archaea, not sure which). Big difference.

Hmm, that makes me wonder. Are there photosynthetic archaea? I wonder if halobacteria count. The creatures definitely use light to make ATP but they also use organic carbon sources rather than CO[sub]2[/sub] or something. Well, I guess they do synthesise stuff with that ATP...

(But halobacteria are aerobic)

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, it's an accurate reading of Genesis 1. But it is a fundamental impossibility when compared against the harsh nature of reality.

I wasn't aware nature was harsh in Genesis 1.

 

[Paconious]

I wasn't aware nature was harsh in Genesis 1.

Nature = Fact
Genesis = Myth