The systematic classification of life

[Aron-Ra]

You have wanted to do this since you were eleven years old? Hey man, go for it.

My initial inspiration for that was my neighbor in 1974. I heard someone on thier radio saying that men and chimpanzees were said to be 98% identical. Then he said that a cloud is 100% water, and a watermelon is 98% water, which meant that a watermelon missed being a cloud by only 2%. I laughed out loud, and my friend's dad wanted to know why. I told him the man on the radio was "so stupid". My friend's dad blew up! He couldn't have been more mad than if I told him I had slept with his wife. He got into my face and bellowed about absolute truth" and all that, and I mean with such defensive rage, that it caught me completely off-guard. So I asked him, "Do you think there's three kingdoms of life; plants, animals, and people?, (being genuinely curious) at which point, he threw me out of his house forever, and forbade his children to play with me ever again.

Later that year, I also heard all sorts of other distortions; dogs giving birth to cats, or fish turning into dogs, a tyrannosaurus turning into a canary, or an individual fish willing himself to grow legs so he can walk on land, and (my favorite) one set of molecules [accidentally or deliberately] assembles a fish while another, unrelated set arrange themselves into a man. Oddly enough, this is exactly what Dr. Periannan Senapathy is proposing now.

Of course every attempt I ever made to explain the real taxonomy involved got sidetracked, or ignored, or resulted in another paranoid outburst.

I always feel that those who are functionally illiterate, undereducated and (no one is completely ignorant) should be given some slack.

Even when they claim to know more than all the world's Nobel laureates and scientific specialists, based only on something a dentist told them?

But I also think that it isn't due to the ignorance of evolution that is at the root of the problem; moreso I think it is a fear of it. There is a fear of the unkown, the fear of maybe being wrong and losing one's faith.

This concept has been explained to me before. But I see no reason why someone would want faith to begin with. So it doesn't make any sense to me. There's no reason to pretend you know what you know you don't. You can't learn from your mistakes if you won't admit to them, and there is no way to discover anything if there is nothing unknown.

"Uncertainty excites me. Baby, who knows what's going to happen? Lottery or car crasch, or you join a cult?"
--Bjork Gudmundsdottir

This is what I see with many creationists. They are standing on the cliff and are to afraid to step out in faith. That is what faith is all about. It is not believing in something because of faith alone but believing something because you know with faith that it won't evaporate into nothingness if you take that step out. Faith does not need to be blind and it does not and can not be in fear.

Yet that is the only kind of faith I have ever seen.

Let's hope that you can be open minded enough to entertain the possibility that a Biblical literalist can remain honestly so even with information and an understanding of taxonomy. Let us also hope that you will be open minded when I bring forth my viewpoint. Okay?

As long as being "open-minded" doesn't require me to be gullible or illogical. I can be open-minded and skeptical at the same time. That's how I always am.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Assuming you all accept your status as chordates, then I'll go ahead and continue.

First, let's recap.

Biota (Living things)
Domain: Eukarya (organisms with nucleic cells)
[informal] subdomain Opisthokonta (eukaryotes with rear-mounted gamete flagella)
Kingdom: Animalia (opisthokonts which ingest and digest other organisms)
Subkingdom: Eumetazoa (animals other than sponges)
Grade: Coelomata (Eumetazoans with an internal tubular digestive cavity)
Branch: Bilateria (bilaterally-symmetrical tryploblast coelomates)
Superphylum: Deuterostomia (blastopore opens anally, then orally)
Phylum: Chordata (coelomates with spinal chords)

This heirarchical system was initially devised by one Carl Linne, better known as Carolus Linneaus, and published under the title, Systema Naturae in 1735. Linneaus was a creationist. But he still recognized that all life appeared to belong to tiers of collective groups within larger groups, within still larger groups, which he named Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, etc. It was a good system for a while. But as taxonomy continues to become more complex than Linneaus ever imagined it could be, we find that his 18th Century taxons are bursting at the seams with new supergroups and sub-categories being discovered on several levels on every branch of the tumbleweed of life, such that we have more tiers now than we can supply names for, meaning that some of the structure now has to be revised. Anyway, moving right along...

Not all chordates have a skull. Those that do are in the subphylum, Craniata. Hagfish are craniates in that they have have a skull, but they have no jaws or spinal vertebrae to go with it. The lamprey has a skull, and vertebrae, but no jaws. Nothing has jaws without a skull or vertebrae, and that include Chondrichthyes, (sharks and rays) where these things are there, but they're now made of cartilage instead of bone. So it appears that the skull developed first, followed by vertebrae, and then the jaw. And this is consistent with what we see in the fossil record also, where the first fish to have skulls and backbones and all that still lacked jaws.

Since you have a skull, you are Craniate.
Since you have vertebrae too, you are also vertebrate.
Since you have jaws as well, then you are a gnathostome.
You can't be a gnathostome without being a vertebrate first,
and you can't be vertebrate unless you are already have a skull.
Just another rule evolution has to follow that creation doesn't.

The first gnathostomes were the common ancestors of cartilagenous fish and vertebrates with more calcified bones. And we have some interesting composite fossils from that era that show traits inherited by a number of subgroups at once. For instance, compare those visious bottom teeth to the rolling row system even some ancient sharks used for their teeth.

"Psarolepis shares a number of characteristics previously believed to be unique to actinopterygians or sarcopterygians. In addition, it has several features, such as the fin spines and characters of the shoulder plate, which are associated with placoderms, chondrichthyans, or acanthodians. In overall appearance, Psarolepis most resembles a sarcopterygian, but the plates in isolation look strikingly like placoderm material."
http://palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/090Teleostomi/090.200.html

On the issue of cartilaginous skeletons as opposed to those made of bone, I should point out that Sarcopterygiian (and Crossopterygiian) fish had a significant percentage of cartilage in their bones. This is evident in modern coelacanths, lungfish, and the polypterus which I mentioned before. My polypterus still has much more cartilage in her skeleton than any modern (teleost) fish. So it appears that gnathostomes (jawed vertebrates) diverged at some point in the late Silurian or early Devonian period, with chondrychthyes developing progressively more cartilage in their skeletons (except in the jaw of course) while lobe-finned fish used progressively more bone except where these hinge together.

Most of the bony fish in the Devonian period had lobed-fins, meaning fins that were attached to limbs complete with bones. But many of these, even some of the most ancient ones, also had lungs. This is evident on every surviving species including my polypterus. The development of the lung appears to immediately follow the of divergence of bony fish from sharks, and that lung was nothing more than another sort fo birth defect, an asymmetrical distension of the buoyancy bladder common to all bony fish. Polypteriforms and other "snake-headed" fish are obligate air-breathers in their natural environment of warm, shallow, oxygen-depleted waters. And they can even use their short little limbs to amble away from drying ponds across dry land to find larger bodies of water. Other fish, even those without actual lungs, use their bouyancy bladders to suppliment their oxygen supply when the water is too warm or stagnant to respire with their gills. This is when you see fish taking "drinks" of air.

We have lots and lots more fossil evidence than time or space permits, which consistently shows this sort of evolutionary relationship exclusively. There are very few gaps left, and they are insignificant now, because the one or two small remaining windows can't eliminate the rock-solid walls built all around them anymore. But then we have the comparative morphologies (study of living shapes) of both extinct and extant forms, which consistently lead to cladograms which again always indicate this same scenario. But then, as we mentioned with the analysis of cartilage-to-calcium ratios, (as well as some other chemical factors not mentioned here) with each of the surviving lines from this branch of the hypothesized tree, we see that comparative physiology also consistently reveals this same conclusion again. And lest we forget, we also have genomic sequencing laboratories like the Sogin lab in Massachusetts, repeatedly confirming that DNA analysis also leads to this one conclusion, and no other. And of course periphrial fields of geology and such also confirm that this isn't just the most likely option, its the only one that is supported by anything, and it is supported by everything. I think that means that the fundamental similarities I am describing here should be considered causal.

Cladists (people who really get into this classification system) tend not to use the word, "fish". Somehow, that word seems to have no meaning for them. They say "vertebrates" instead. Similarly, Sarcopterygii doesn't just refer some ancient order of fish which are now mostly extinct. It refers to them and everything scientists believe descended from them.

Basically, sarcopterygii includes all organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemates with spinal chords, skulls, backbones, jaws, lungs, and legs. Do any of you have reason to oppose you're being assigned to this class?

 

[gluadys]

I always feel that those who are functionally illiterate, undereducated and (no one is completely ignorant) should be given some slack. But I also think that it isn't due to the ignorance of evolution that is at the root of the problem; moreso I think it is a fear of it. There is a fear of the unkown, the fear of maybe being wrong and losing one's faith. You are a movie buff so I'll use one to illustrate what I mean. In the movie Indiana Jones and the last Crusade, there is a point where Indiana needs to step off the cliff into an abyss and once he takes the step there is solid footing albeit unseen when looking down.

snip image

This is what I see with many creationists. They are standing on the cliff and are to afraid to step out in faith. That is what faith is all about. It is not believing in something because of faith alone but believing something because you know with faith that it won't evaporate into nothingness if you take that step out. Faith does not need to be blind and it does not and can not be in fear.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here.

I think there is a world of difference between a faith that goes beyond reason and a faith that goes against reason.

The first is like Pascal's observation that "the heart has reasons, reason knows nothing about." Or like Abraham's trust in the God who called him away from his family and country to an unidentified place.

No knowledge supports such faith, but no knowledge contradicts it either. It is a matter of believing evidence not yet seen, not of disbelieving evidence that is seen.

The second is like Mark Twain's notion that faith is believing something you know ain't so. And when that occurs in real life, it is often a matter of fear, not faith. Fear of accepting a reality that goes against what one has believed.

But fear of reality can never be the basis of an honest Christian faith. How can the God who created reality ever be dishonoured by reality?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Funny ironic. Our perspectives are enormously different. I do have an explanation, and you are ignoring that. My explanation is that life, according to what I have seen myself, and heard explained, by a Christian professor, is that the structure of life is mere chemistry at its most fundamental level, and that it is possible for life to arrange itself. The explanation is that simple chemicals lead to polymers, some of which are replicative. We know of a few that are like this, so there is a precedent. Replicating polymers are the core componant of the Hypercycle hypothesis, which is what is believed to have lead to protobionts, and then of course to full-scale life. That explanation may not have a lot of proof at the moment. But its got a lot more evidence than you perspective does.

What evidence?

You have no explanation at all, and instead use the excuse that it must be magic. No. That's too many assumptions compiled atop other assumptions, and none with any other basis. First, you have to show me that this magic invisible ghost is even an option to be seriously considered.

I do and can give a reasonable explanation but I don't want to derail your thread. But we will go there when you have reached your final conclusions.

Except that you don't really know God is real. Everyone says they "know" their god is real, even when it is mutually-exclusive of everyone else's gods. Not all of them can be right at the same time, yet they are all just as convinced as you are. If they can be deceived by their belief, then so can you be.

Yes, I know that my God is real. I can't prove that He is to you or anyone else that He is. No, not all can be right. I agree with that completely.
Yes, I could be deceived. But if I am deceived I am being deceived by something...someone outside of myself. Someone who has the power to cause things to happen that are not humanly possible. So yes, I might be deceived by this being who claims to be the Christian God but if I am it is due to the reality of Him and His presence rather than a "wantabe Christian" affliction.

I always thought it was a dimensional rift, rather like the string theorists now propose. That would be a cause.

But of course you don't know and at the moment one theory is as good as another.

I'll grant you that, if you'll remind yourself of the fact that there are fewer theists in cosmology than in any other scientific field, except possibly biology.

And that is suppose to mean something to me?

I try to keep an open mind. But obviously no two of these can be true at the same time.
Which is why your post-name is so amusing to me, Stilldeceived.

Aron-ra I am so thankful that in choosing my name I brought such joy to someone.

Not true. There is some speculation in the formation of hypotheses. But there are also circumstances which can be tested for in various ways:

If (__) is true, then by extension, (__) would be true also. At the same time, (__) could not be true.

But if (__) is considered true, then by extension, (__) would be true also. At the same time (__) could not be true because (__) has to be true because (__) is surmised from (__).

You make a logical analysis of what should be, given a certain circumstance, and then you test for that. That's what the Miller-Urey experiment was all about. Now why don't you show me where or how the same deductive process can be applied to creationism?

I shall. But like I said, I want you to get that boyhood dream fulfilled first.

And don't forget to supply any potentially-falsifiable hypotheses that were proposed by creationists, and evidence in support of their position.

NO,no and no. When I present my viewpoint it will be my own and not some ID movements interpretion. I will hold you to that view as well. I will not take arguments against the ID movement which I may or may not hold.

Yes, and about the only thing that is certain is that the Genesis account is just speculation also, and that however the Earth formed, it wasn't the way the Bible said.

The interpretation of Genesis is speculation. But well see if I can make a rational explanation of Genesis.

He would have to if his very existence or involvement in anything were logical.
No, I'm talking about something of substance. Traditionally, men speak of historic places and events, (especially tragedies) and over time, they tend to embellish their stories by adding mythic elements to them. Look at the story of Troy for example.

Scientists uncover Sodom's fiery end

The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, by John Martin (1789-1854)
How British artist John Martin imagined the cities' end
By the BBC's Andrew Craig

British scientists believe they may have found evidence to support the Bible's account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

But they think a natural cause, rather than God's anger, lay behind the calamity.


Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven

Genesis 19: 24, 25
The Bible describes how the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in a storm of fire and brimstone - a punishment from God because of their people's depravity.

But now a retired British geologist, Graham Harris, believes he may have proved that the two cities really existed, and may have explained why they perished.

Unstable area

Dr Harris thinks Sodom and Gomorrah were built on the shores of the Dead Sea so that they could trade in naturally-occurring asphalt.

This tarry substance was used in ancient times to waterproof boats and to hold stones together in buildings.

But the ground next to the Dead Sea is very unstable, lying on the joint between two of the Earth's tectonic plates which are moving in opposite directions.

The area is vulnerable to earthquakes.

Flammable methane

Geological and archaeological evidence suggest that a huge one took place about four and a half thousand years ago - the time of the Biblical destruction.

Flammable methane pockets lie under the Dead Sea shores; the earthquake would have ignited them, the ground would have turned to quicksand, and a massive landslide would have swept the cities into the water.

Experiments carried out at Cambridge University have backed up this account.

But more conclusive evidence is still needed; not unless the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah are found under the Dead Sea's salty waters will the theory be proved.

Interesting information on Jericho
http://www.diggingsonline.com/pages/rese/journa1/samp65.htm
There are some conflicting info though in this find.

I would look for evidence of miracles, things like the Tower of Babel, or the global flood. But since we know for a fact that both of these stories are wrong, as is the creation myth, then I doubt anything we find in Jericho is likely to make me believe in your wholly improbable, at least partially mythical god.

There is evidence for many elements of the Bible.

But God is a supernatural element. Validation of anything from the realm of the supernatural would at least lend plausibility to other supernatural things.
What good is prophesy if it never does this?

I might go into prophecy at some time too. It would derail this one though.

Dogs and elephants are capable of hearing ultrasonic frequencies which we cannot. I think you'll find that the other apes can't hear these frequencies either.
If you want to keep your survival senses, you'll need to live in an environment which will hone them. You're talking about picking up ultrasonic vibrations when we live next to train tracks and freeways, in shelters surrounded by electric fields and loud volumes on all kinds of artificial noise, and where we often even ignore the gunshots outside the window. We're not in-tune with anything anymore.

LOL true, so true.

No you don't. You think a giant universal deity is whispering subliminal messages to you.

Please don't try to tell me what I think okay?

I don't think you're ready to read my autobiography right now. Suffice it to say that at some point I realized that some of the things I believed could only be supported if I read certain things to the exclusion of others. I had to make a choice. Do I deliberately blind myself to the things that challenge my beliefs? Or do I investigate those things, as well as my beliefs, even if there is a real risk that they'll turn out to be wrong? One by one, every last item that ever provided any kind of support for any spiritual belief I ever had, ever in my life, all eventually turned out to be either pschological delusions or deliberate frauds.
The final straw was Kirlian "spirit" photography. When I was a boy, I was innocently deceived by what I thought was a legitimate science documentary, one that showed evidence of life force, metaclorian astral form of the soul. They showed a leaf on a plate being photographed by a special process. The image of the leaf, inlcuding all the little veins and textures in it, appeared as a glittering mass of tiny phospherescent blue sparks. This was said to be the trace energy produced by electrical fields within the leaf. Most of us know that life generates electricity, so I followed along for the second half of the demonstration, which was to cut the leaf in half, and photograph it again. At first, the image showed the half-leaf just glittering like before. But then, on a slighter longer exposure, the other half of the leaf slowly appeared. This, I thought, was adequate demonstration that all living things weren't merely chemicals reacting, but that there was some other componant to life, some etherial "water" to make our clay malleable. Life was the junction of two planes, and death was their separation. Like clay drying out, our "dust" would return to the Earth. But our souls, our transcendental, astral selves, would evaporate out, to be recombined with the universal Dharma, the cosmic oneness, the Tao. This all made sense to me, (especially after Star Wars came out) and it seemed quite likely given the evidence. Everyone I ever knew to that point, and for many years after believed in all kinds of paranormal activities and entitites, and this idea of mine seemed to accomidate them all, even reincarnation, and past-life remembrance. It also occured to me that if this were true, that men wouldn't have been able to interpret their perceptions of it correctly, and that would explain the various religions dedicated to gods.

Everyone touting any belief at all tends to claim that they "know" theirs is "absolute truth", and often they say theirs "scientifically proven". But I didn't realize that yet. Nor did I even suspect that anyone would ever televise a documentary full of information they knew to be untrue. (PAX TV does that a lot.) But I was too naive not to believe what a seemingly logical narrator explained with lots of seemingly convincing evidence.



As evidenced by our national magazines, almost none of the laity in this country really knows much of anything. For all our egocentric arrogance, most of us are impressively ignorant, if not just plain stupid. And almost everyone believes in supernatural things, mostly because everyone else does. So whenever I mentioned Kirlian photography, no one ever knew what I was talking about, and I learned not to be surprised at that, whatever the subject was. But then I found myself on Talk.Origins, and through them, in on-line conversations with many professional scientists of various fields. Suddenly, whatever I said, I found out had always been wrong. And this was especially harsh when I brought up Kirlian photography, and found out that it, and the show which presented it, were both deliberate hoaxes no more reliable than the stories in the Weekly World News.



At about that time, I read an article where Leonard Nimoy admitted that virtually nothing in his In Search Of series was true, and that in fact he was the Art Bell of the 1970s.
I have left it behind. Once I finally realized what faith really meant; believing something highly improbable for literally no reason at all, I reacted with shock. That's why I dove into these type forums. Surely if there was any reason to believe in anything supernatural, someone in these forums will be able to provide it, and someone else won't be able to shoot it down so easily. That was five years ago. And no one has ever given me any reason to believe in anything "spiritual" except for a love of nature itself. And all my own paranormal experiences, which were so profound, and which still seem so real to me today, I now know never really happened. It took me a long time to realize that because I was just as deceived as you are, and for the same reason.

How can you know that the paranormal experiences were not real?

What reason do you think that I am deceived?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think you have hit the nail on the head here.

I think there is a world of difference between a faith that goes beyond reason and a faith that goes against reason.

The first is like Pascal's observation that "the heart has reasons, reason knows nothing about." Or like Abraham's trust in the God who called him away from his family and country to an unidentified place.

No knowledge supports such faith, but no knowledge contradicts it either. It is a matter of believing evidence not yet seen, not of disbelieving evidence that is seen.

The second is like Mark Twain's notion that faith is believing something you know ain't so. And when that occurs in real life, it is often a matter of fear, not faith. Fear of accepting a reality that goes against what one has believed.

But fear of reality can never be the basis of an honest Christian faith. How can the God who created reality ever be dishonoured by reality?

Very well said. Even if we disagree on other things, I agree fully with this.

 

[Oncedeceived]

My initial inspiration for that was my neighbor in 1974. I heard someone on thier radio saying that men and chimpanzees were said to be 98% identical. Then he said that a cloud is 100% water, and a watermelon is 98% water, which meant that a watermelon missed being a cloud by only 2%. I laughed out loud, and my friend's dad wanted to know why. I told him the man on the radio was "so stupid". My friend's dad blew up! He couldn't have been more mad than if I told him I had slept with his wife. He got into my face and bellowed about absolute truth" and all that, and I mean with such defensive rage, that it caught me completely off-guard. So I asked him, "Do you think there's three kingdoms of life; plants, animals, and people?, (being genuinely curious)

Procoscious(sp.?) perhaps?

at which point, he threw me out of his house forever, and forbade his children to play with me ever again.

Later that year, I also heard all sorts of other distortions; dogs giving birth to cats, or fish turning into dogs, a tyrannosaurus turning into a canary, or an individual fish willing himself to grow legs so he can walk on land, and (my favorite) one set of molecules [accidentally or deliberately] assembles a fish while another, unrelated set arrange themselves into a man. Oddly enough, this is exactly what Dr. Periannan Senapathy is proposing now.

Wow, all I ever heard when I was a kid was childhood banter. You must have lived in a very unusual environment.

Of course every attempt I ever made to explain the real taxonomy involved got sidetracked, or ignored, or resulted in another paranoid outburst.
Even when they claim to know more than all the world's Nobel laureates and scientific specialists, based only on something a dentist told them?

Perhaps it was your age rather than your information.

This concept has been explained to me before. But I see no reason why someone would want faith to begin with.

Wanting faith? How does one want faith? Either you have it or you do not. Either you develope it or it dies. But want...that I don't understand.

So it doesn't make any sense to me. There's no reason to pretend you know what you know you don't

I agree. How to you pretend to know something that you don't? You either know it or you do not. Either you lack that knowledge or you don't. I just don't know how to pretend to know something that I don't know.

You can't learn from your mistakes if you won't admit to them, and there is no way to discover anything if there is nothing unknown.

I believe that is true.

Yet that is the only kind of faith I have ever seen.

Then look at me and you will see.

As long as being "open-minded" doesn't require me to be gullible or illogical. I can be open-minded and skeptical at the same time. That's how I always am.

Never would I want you gullible or illogical. And Aron-ra I wouldn't change you for the world.

 

[Dragar]

You guys are so cute.

 

[time]

Science only excludes one more god than you do

And if it is, then the One true God, and Creator, that your so called science excludes, then it is grossly in darkness. Also, by excluding Him, as you admit, it becomes impossible to come to any real understanding. You say I exclude some gods. Not really, I acknowledge them as real, and false, as far as creating the world. I also acknowlede science without God as false! Don't think that throwing out the True God with all the minor gods gives some type of grandiose fairness, and believability to something!

Science is areligious, not anti-religious.

Well, Jesus was kinda anti religious as well, as it was the religious people who really had Him killed. But when it comes to being anti God, and anti Christ, the little cult of so called science puts itself squarely in the position of being utterly unworthy, and incapable, of being taught to God's children! Only as, like the gods you speak of, another belief system in opposition to the truth.

 

[time]

Then perhaps you can point me to the evidence that has bunny rabbits coming before bacteria in the fossil record? Sorry, but all of the evidence points towards bacteria being alone in the world millions of years before multi-cellular life came around.

Hmm, well, working within the confines of evidence you will accept, with the bible disallowed, worldwide flood accounts, supernatural, etc. it would be pretty hard. Since you need to touch it, smell it, taste it, and have it fit under a microscope, so to speak. So then, I will suggest that the fossil record, as incomplete as it may be, does not tell me that bacteria came first! This type of reasoning, or lack therof, is pure conjecture, and interpretation of evidence. Let's say, for example that man was in Eden, and all mammals, and sealife nearby as well. Such a little area would not show up, probably in a global record in the rocks. Despite the fact there were all kinds of life there. Out in the world, where man was to someday spread out, most life would not exist yet. Yes, likely God would have some lifforms of some kind preparing the earth for the eventual spread of life. Hence, would we not finf trilobites, and things like that globally in that time strata? If such a scenario were the case, how easy it would be for some God ommitting knowledge to suggest some creatures sprouted from others! Now, add to this many centuries later, a worldwide flood, and you really got some interpreting to do!
But if you want me to dig up Adam from somewhere, to prove it, why, you dig up 'granny bacteria' mother of all living first!

 

[Tomk80]

But if you want me to dig up Adam from somewhere, to prove it, why, you dig up 'granny bacteria' mother of all living first!

We already did. Well maybe not great-great-great granny, but granny (or her sister) we have. Excavations of the oldest layers of the earth have shown that cellular life was present on earth before any other life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You guys are so cute.

Just who are the guys that you think are cute? Me perhaps.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Time out:::::

I just want to say that this thread is not only informative but sometimes fun and crazy. I LIKE IT!!!!

 

[time]

We already did. Well maybe not great-great-great granny, but granny (or her sister) we have. Excavations of the oldest layers of the earth have shown that cellular life was present on earth before any other life.

Well, I suppose cellular life exists in my belly right now as well. There are some forms, I believe of bacteria that help break down food for digestion. Now, out in the world, in my scenario here, away from the garden of Eden, is where I would expect to find life that would help in sort of getting the earth ready for mankind's (and beasts) -spread. After all the very first commandment was to have sex, and multiply! Why would a garden be needed for man if the earth was already perfectly suitable? The bible says something like 'He planted a garden east of eden' (for man). So just because bacteria, or cellular life, was found down in the fossil record, does not mean Adam wasn't having a great time in the garden, at the same time one of these thingies died in the ground out in the earth somewhere! Call em granny if you want, I'll not say 'uncle'!

 

[GoSeminoles!]

This heirarchical system was initially devised by one Carl Linne, better known as Carolus Linneaus, and published under the title, Systema Naturae in 1735.

Didn't he name a stinky weed after one of his critics?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Replicating polymers are the core componant of the Hypercycle hypothesis, which is what is believed to have lead to protobionts, and then of course to full-scale life. That explanation may not have a lot of proof at the moment. But its got a lot more evidence than you perspective does.

What evidence?

Apart from the things I have already shown you, (phospholipid bilayer, transport vesicles, the Miller-Urey experiment, etc.) there is the fact that replicating polymers can be empiracly proven to exist.

Yes, I know that my God is real. I can't prove that He is to you or anyone else that He is. No, not all can be right. I agree with that completely.
Yes, I could be deceived. But if I am deceived I am being deceived by something...someone outside of myself. Someone who has the power to cause things to happen that are not humanly possible. So yes, I might be deceived by this being who claims to be the Christian God but if I am it is due to the reality of Him and His presence rather than a "wantabe Christian" affliction.

I was deceived by someone inside myself, by myself. I suspect you are too. And my friend who "knows" Bast exists because he claims to have met her? I suspect he is deceiving himself as well. You don't need any "lord of lies" to be deceived. All you need is faith.

And what is faith? According to a Southern Baptist minister I know, who is now the principle of a Christian school, faith is something which is affirmed simply by convincing yourself that your preferred belief is correct, and assuming that everything that happens is in some way part of that plan, things which would of course not be humanly possible. Of course I define that as self-deception.

I always thought it was a dimensional rift, rather like the string theorists now propose. That would be a cause.

But of course you don't know and at the moment one theory is as good as another.

True. And there's none of the theories presented thus far have any practical application as yet, so they're not an issue.

although I am aware that there are seemingly uncaused events today does not mean that the BB may well be uncaused in the same way. This is assumption and no more or no less in evidence than God is.

I'll grant you that, if you'll remind yourself of the fact that there are fewer theists in cosmology than in any other scientific field, except possibly biology.

And that is suppose to mean something to me?

If I remember correctly, only about 7% of the world's cosmologists still believe in a god, meaning that after all their studies of the universe, 93% didn't believe in a god where at least some of them did before.

But if (__) is considered true, then by extension, (__) would be true also. At the same time (__) could not be true because (__) has to be true because (__) is surmised from (__).

Exactly. Now you test all parts of this statement to discover what does and doesn't hold up anymore. Then when you've eliminated what you now know is wrong, you come up with a new series of questions, and start the process over again. This method will winnow reality from falsity pretty effectively.

Now why don't you show me where or how the same deductive process can be applied to creationism? And don't forget to supply any potentially-falsifiable hypotheses that were proposed by creationists, and evidence in support of their position.

NO,no and no. When I present my viewpoint it will be my own and not some ID movements interpretion. I will hold you to that view as well. I will not take arguments against the ID movement which I may or may not hold.

I didn't ask you for your viewpoint, or anyone else's either. I asked you to show me how the scientific method applies to creation "science".

Yes, and about the only thing that is certain is that the Genesis account is just speculation also, and that however the Earth formed, it wasn't the way the Bible said.

The interpretation of Genesis is speculation. But well see if I can make a rational explanation of Genesis.

I already did.

1. The tower of Babel started out as the Tower of Marduk, a pagan predessesor to your god. And there were already many different tongues being spoken long before then.

2. Noah's flood was a localized event centered around the city of Shurippak in the 30th Century BCE, and again was originally dedicated to other gods.

3. Sodom and Gomorrah may have existed, and might have been destroyed in the manner suggested by Dr. Harris, or they were taken out by a volcano, which would explain the falling brimstone. But there is nothing to indicate any miracles or deities were ever involved.

4. The first four chapters of Genesis are entirely fictional without a granule of truth anywhere in it. It is all just unrealistic myths with no modern relevance whatsoever.

There's no way you could save Genesis at this point unless you changed the meanings of all the words in it.

Genesis 19: 24, 25
The Bible describes how the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in a storm of fire and brimstone - a punishment from God because of their people's depravity.

Yet the hero of the story offered his own children to a rape mob. Then when his wife turned missing, mysteriously, he got drunk and had sex with his own kids, and then blamed them for seducing him! Why is it that in all of these stories, God's favorite person is usually some drunk ready to curse, molest or murder his own children at the drop of a hat? And why is the Bible considered a source of good moral family values?

There is evidence for many elements of the Bible.

But none for God or even one of his alleged miracles.

How can you know that the paranormal experiences were not real?

Only that they couldn't really have happened. I can't explain away everything except to say that if I wasn't already primed for a paranormal experience, I wouldn't have had one. If I hadn't meditated on these things for hours, then I wouldn't have seen any of it, and I don't think anyone with me would have either. These sorts of delusions sort of need to be helped along by other participants.

What reason do you think that I am deceived?

You still believe the Bible trumps science. The stories in Genesis did not happen as described, and we know they didn't without a doubt. Likewise, we know that all your dates that were based on Ussher's calculations are off by an order of magnitude of up to 100x. You are deceived by people who were themselves deceived, and you're still trying to vindicate a tome of mostly grotesque bedtime stories that have been soundly and profoundly disproved since long before Darwin was even born. The Bible is not the ultimate authority, and in fact it has no authority at all. And this would still be true even if your god really existed.

 

[Aron-Ra]

So I asked him, "Do you think there's three kingdoms of life; plants, animals, and people?, (being genuinely curious)

Procoscious(sp.?) perhaps?

I genuinely expected him to provide a compelling reason behind his position. Decades later, and I'm still waiting for one.

Wanting faith? How does one want faith? Either you have it or you do not. Either you develope it or it dies. But want...that I don't understand.

Why would you develope it, if you didn't want it? Why would you be afraid to lose it, if you didn't need it?

How to you pretend to know something that you don't? You either know it or you do not. Either you lack that knowledge or you don't. I just don't know how to pretend to know something that I don't know.

You said you knew there was a god. In the same paragraph, you said you could be deceived about that, proving that you don't know there is a god.

Knowledge can be tested, and the accuracy of that knowledge can be measured. Beliefs often can't be tested or measured. If you can't prove to me that any facet of your god is real, then you only believe he is, and don't actually know it yourself.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Didn't he name a stinky weed after one of his critics?

That I don't know. But it sounds good.

 

[Lilandra]

There's no way you could save Genesis at this point unless you changed the meanings of all the words in it.
Yet the hero of the story offered his own children to a rape mob. Then when his wife turned missing, mysteriously, he got drunk and had sex with his own kids, and then blamed them for seducing him! Why is it that in all of these stories, God's favorite person is usually some drunk ready to curse, molest or murder his own children at the drop of a hat? And why is the Bible considered a source of good moral family values?

I think the daughters of Lot were not children at the time and they got him drunk and told him that they might be the last people in the world so they need to preserve the human race.

Most of the time when someone in the Bible does something that is a sin like drunkeness there is an immediate bad consequence following it. Just like life. The Bible is not filled with angels the characters are as human as you and me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I just spent the last few hours responding to your post Aron-ra and my computer just crashed and lost it all. I am sick. This has happened to me in the past and you would think I would learn but it seems I always forget how frustrating it can be. I think I will leave it until tomorrow now.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I think the daughters of Lot were not children at the time and they got him drunk and told him that they might be the last people in the world so they need to preserve the human race.

You believe that, but you don't feel you're deceived?

Most of the time when someone in the Bible does something that is a sin like drunkeness there is an immediate bad consequence following it. Just like life. The Bible is not filled with angels the characters are as human as you and me.

I never had sex with my kids. My kids have never even seen me drunk. Nor would I allow them to be raped. Nor would I murder them, or eat them. Nor would I murder anyone else's kids, or rip babies out of the womb. Nor would I enslave children, nor would I have awarded them to my men as sex objects. Nor would I have damed them to be torn apart by bears. No, the very best folks in the Bible are all a whole lot more evil than (hopefully) either of us.