The Meaning of Living - Page 3

quote:

---

If Noah's ark were true, the amount of inbreeding that would have to occur with the majority of animal species would result in very unhealthy animals and plants.
We certainly wouldn't have the number of animals we have today. And besides, the genetic diversity within humans and animals (take dogs for instance) is far to great to have been from the genetic variations of 2 individuals.
4000 years isn't enough time for the mutations necessary to the diversity we have today (within a species).

---

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
YOU ACCEPT SIMPLE LIFE FORMS EVOLVING INTO COMPLEX LIFE FORMS, SUCH AS AN AMOEBA INTO A HUMAN, AND THEN NOT ONLY FORMING A HUMAN, BUT ALSO FORMING TWO OF EACH SPECIES. YOU SAY WE ALL EVOLVED FROM HOW MANY 'LIFE FORMS'?
ONE, TWO, WHAT IS THE RATIO? HOW IS IT, THE EVOLVED CREATURES FROM THESE SINGLE CELLED CREATURES FORMED ANIMALS AND HUMANS AND BOTH MALE AND FEMALE?
HOWEVER, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE THE CREATURES OF THE SAME EXTENT BEGIN PROCREATION AGAIN, UNDER THE GUIDE OF GOD WHO WOULD NOT ALLOW IMPERFECT OR MESSED UP CREATURES.
HOWEVER, WE ARE TO BELIEVE THE PREPOSTEROUS EVENT THAT ANIMALS ALL EVOLVED FROM A CELL. THE ENTIRE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT, ALL CAME FROM ONE SINGLE LONELY CELL THAT THOT UNTO ITSELF IT SHOULD CREATE A WHOLE WORLD.
NOAH'S ARK IS MORE POSSIBLE.
ALSO NOTE, I AM USING CAP'S SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT I AM SAYING.
THE INFO I GOT ABOUT THE FISH INTO AMPHIBIANS IS UP TO DATE, SO WHERE IS THIS LUNGFISH IN THE AMPHIBIAN WORLD? WHERE ARE ITS LEGS?


http://www.chrisaugusta.com/EastAfrica/Victoriajpgs/lungfish.jpg
<-PIC OF A LUNGFISH. I SEE NO FEET.



http://www.whozoo.org/Anlife99/lashawn/africanlungfishindex4.htm <-IN NO WAY DOES THIS RELATE TO BEING AMPHIBIAN. IT IS STILL A FISH.

Did I hit a nerve?

"ONE, TWO, WHAT IS THE RATIO? HOW IS IT, THE EVOLVED CREATURES FROM THESE SINGLE CELLED CREATURES FORMED ANIMALS AND HUMANS AND BOTH MALE AND FEMALE?"
Certain single celled organisms have the ability to exchange genetic information (they are of both sexes).
This was the first step. Evolution is about small steps, I'm sure you can imagine the next few steps.

"EVOLVED FROM A CELL. THE ENTIRE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT, ALL CAME FROM ONE SINGLE LONELY CELL THAT THOT UNTO ITSELF IT SHOULD CREATE A WHOLE WORLD."
Why the hell not? One cell after 9 months makes the TRILLIONS of cells of human baby.
Why can't one cell make what we have now after hundreds of millions of years?

"<-PIC OF A LUNGFISH. I SEE NO FEET. "
I'm talking about primeval lungfish. They don't have full fledged feet. But they do have strong muscled fins that allow them to hop around.
If the lungfish had legs, we'd call it a frog. A lungfish does have stronger fins though, which are the first step (no pun intended) towards feet and legs (the bones in a fin are homologous to the bones of a frog's foot).

http://www004.upp.so-net.ne.jp/amago/trouthistory/h110813a.JPG

See the very fine fins.

http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/who/images/R-dipterus.jpg
http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/who/images/R-lobe-fin.jpg

Notice the meaty fins for crawling around, precursors to legs. But the fish still has thin ends to its fins, since it still swims around it hasn't lost that useful trait.

Evolution is small steps.

DumbTeen, now you have two arguments going on you. You try to defend evolution, and yet also, your own theory on the universe. I am sorry we are kinda being hard on you. I kinda wish some one would come here and agree with you.

quote:

---

"Just as I am of my biological father. I was born from him. But in know way do I control him, nor he controls me. We are two different thinking existences who do not need to think about eachother to exist."
But if no one knew your father and you didn't know your father. Hence he affects no one, he for all practical purposes does not exist.
We can deduce his existence because of your existence.
But if we even take you out of the picture, your father effectively does not exist.
Of course he exists for himself, because he is a conscious entity, however, the universe cannot exist for itself usually because it is not conscious.
The universe can only exist for little bits of itself : the life it creates.

(I'm not saying the universe is conscious, I am saying that for there to be any existence there must be life)

---

If I never knew my father, I would still acknowledge that he existed, because I had to have come from somewhere.
If I were out of the picture, existence would be irrelevant to me because I would not exist.

I did not just grow out of a petri dish.

And then comes this deep thought.

For a universe to exist, there has to be people. That is what you are saying. Otherewise, the entire universe would be over as soon as it began.
The thing about that is, without people, the universe then would not exist at all, people or not. There would be nothing, no such creation at all. Can you imagine that? It kinda scares me in a away. No universe.
For the freak accident to be necessary, there would be something that needed it. The universe needs us so that there is not nothing. If you get that.
As I say again, I did not grow out of a petri dish.
The universe needs us to exist, but we had to have come from somewhere infinite.
The universe would have lapsed before we were created because of time. It alone did not exist without people so it could not bring itself into existence, namely, it could not create us. There had to be something eternal, infinite, constant. That essence is God. To which, there is no beginning and no end.
God is crucial for the universe to exist.

"YOU ACCEPT SIMPLE LIFE FORMS EVOLVING INTO COMPLEX LIFE FORMS, SUCH AS AN AMOEBA INTO A HUMAN, AND THEN NOT ONLY FORMING A HUMAN, BUT ALSO FORMING TWO OF EACH SPECIES. YOU SAY WE ALL EVOLVED FROM HOW MANY 'LIFE FORMS'?"
I think this is your major blocking point in understanding evolution. You seem to be implying that each species requires its own 'life explosion' and then subsequent evolution for it to exist (according to evolution).

That is not the case. Under evolution, a population A of species 1 lives in an area. A part of population A goes to live somewhere else in different conditions forming population B.
Population B adapting and evolving to the new conditions (indepedently of population A) become a seperate species, species B.
That is how new species can branch out of old ones. That is how one species (say archeopterix) can through spreading to different environments, create new species (all the birds we have today).

The key to this happening is that 2 populations must not mix for a long enough period. Such a thing happened with neanderthal man. They are a seperate species of man who, because they were in Europe cut off from other men for so long, formed their own species well adapted to the cold Europe of the ice age (namely, shorter bodies, more fat and muscle).

"DumbTeen, now you have two arguments going on you."
I think the evolution argument is going ok, although the more philosophical one is a bit iffy..

"I did not just grow out of a petri dish. "
I know, I said you could deduce your fathers existence because you exist.

"If I were out of the picture, existence would be irrelevant to me because I would not exist. "
That also illustrates my point. A universe with no life has no relevant existence.

"For the freak accident to be necessary, there would be something that needed it."
Existance needs it. I am assuming that something must exist (perhaps it is wrong?) The idea of complete non-existance seems so impossible. So, I am going off the principle that something must exist, and that for something to exist, it must exist for a conscious being.
So the need for existance is what causes life.

"The universe would have lapsed before we were created because of time. It alone did not exist without people so it could not bring itself into existence, namely, it could not create us."

Life isn't just affected by the current state of the universe. It is also affected by the consequences of the past and so it exists. The universe's future after life is gone does not have any relevant existance.

I am still awaiting the evolution that should still be 'developing' new species...it has been billions of years...why are we not seeing new forms?

You say it takes millions of years...ok, we have ahd billions.
If evolving substance had the ability to self form, then why are creatures limited to what we have today?

You cannot answer that. Because evolving from a single cell is IMPOSSIBLE...without the origin of an egg and sperm.

Your highly held philosophy has been flat on its face, and your replies are single minded.

2,000.000,000 bc, all sorts of species 'begin' They finalise their 'debut' in 8000 bc

400,000,000 bc, organisms decided to stop self producing, because their intellect as a single cell far exceeds that of the pure motivation to just begin a new creation, and seeing that other single celled creations have flourished. the new ones decided to NOT evolve.

Thence we no longer have NEW species to populate.

See, the problem with your theory is that......every single year we live, their should be new species. WHY? Because as the earth began billions of years ago, the 'world' and 'universe' in its infinite wisdom would not be able to actually discern that the planet was no more in need of more animals.
BUT billions of years have passed. How many animals and plants live? Not nearly the amount we would have if your theory were true.
WE would still be seeing new animals daily, because yesterday would mark million years ago, and the day before would have marked millions of years earlier, and the week before would have marked the date of a million or more years ago...etc...GET THE PICTURE?



NOW..why are we not seeing new beasts or human type creatures?? Why did only ONE human type creature evolve? Why do we not have semi human, animal creatures? Or other variations besides color?


According to YOUR theory, it took millions of years to evolve. Think about it...we still have the possibilty to have MORE species by right of your mindset, and belief system. BUT WE DONT!

"I am still awaiting the evolution that should still be 'developing' new species...it has been billions of years...why are we not seeing new forms?"
Billions of years since what?
If you mean since there was life, well yes new species have been discovered.

"You cannot answer that. Because evolving from a single cell is IMPOSSIBLE...without the origin of an egg and sperm."
Bacteria do it without egg and sperm...

"Your highly held philosophy has been flat on its face, and your replies are single minded. "
I don't know, I am just telling you why your objections aren't a problem with the consistency of the theory.

"See, the problem with your theory is that......every single year we live, their should be new species."
Can't you understand its a gradual process. Its not 'oh from now one we're changing species'. No of course not.
We ARE seeing new change in species (moths turning black) and domesticated animals are very different from their wild counterparts.
New species have been appearing through any period of history that's long enough (whether it be neanderthals or galapagos iguanas).

And while your attacking evolution, have you even CONSIDERED the absurdity of a fairy tail like Noah's Ark? Your tellling me he held tens of thousands of animals (not to mention insects), and fed them and held their shit for 40 days and 40 nights on a BOAT?

"NOW..why are we not seeing new beasts or human type creatures?"
For humans there were neanderthals. And newhuman species don't appear because human populations interbreed too much.

I understand the theory of (over a long time). But what about DNA, is that not a miracle. I mean, it's like a program that is WAY over our head that we are just beginning to unravel. I would look at that and say, "that couldn't have happened by accident."

quote:

---

Bacteria do it without egg and sperm...

---

Then why are we not still formed by bacteria? Why has that essense disappeared, after all it took millions of years for it to get it right.

The problem with evolution theory is it has NO beginning for the earth, it has no begining for the bacteria, it has no air substance beginning, but we are to believe that very complex life forms just happened. Even with time, millions of time, we do know that if a bacteria does not have a host it dies on the ground.

Please explain how it encumbered a growth so magnificent, but now it dies if not hosted by an animal.

A bacteria strain must live within a person or an animal in order to survive.
BUT, millions of years ago, it was somehow STRONGER than it is today, and it even had the ability to produce many many complex individualised animals, people, plants. etc
THIS is a misnomer, since evolution suggest that all creatures become stronger in order to survive. NOT the bacteria tho, that magnificently produced humans. sigh...Where is that bacteria anyway? What happened that it can not exist since we now exist? But other life forms of the same nature are around?

BUT, from what I read about evolution, it began in water.

Now, where has that water come from?

Where has the rock, earth, and all particles of the crust of the earth come from?

How about that SUN? What scientist has been around for millions of years to actually notice the length of time it actually takes for the 'stars' to evolve before they burn out?

I saw that graph once, but it is all hypothetical at best. They have no concrete evidence. Moreover, none have ever gotten close enough to inspect it.

It is all theory and speculation. Yet, some come and say...'This is how it worked' like they are masters in the knowledge of earth and science.

This, my friend is WHY scientists and those who study all of the above BELIEVE in God. Yet, you who reads what they have ascertained, does not.

You cannot put faith in science but release God of creation, when even the best scientist admit now, there has to be a Creator.

Thanks Okcity, I have asked that, and got a run around of sorts. Time being the answer. As is always the answer.

Did you ever notice; that if we evolved from other life forms, would we not have the same complex DNA as they?
If we were relative to an animal we self created from, would we not be able then to reproduce with that animal?

And evolution states dogs and cats have one ancestry, and yet if shared in DNA, they simply cannot procreate together.

The only animals that can procreate that are not neccessarily at odds in relativity are horses and Donkeys. The outcome, mules. Yet the mule cannot reproduce.

So, if we evolved from a lungfish, frog, amphibian, why are we unable to reproduce with them?

The theory of evolution does not take into account the DNA factors, and that no matter how hard they try, they will never have one creature reproduce from another even if they were SUPPOSEDLY In the same family. Because the DNA is entirely different.

The DNA is entirely different, because the DNA did NOT come from the original frog, or whatever animal they claim we came from.

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie"
(Romans 1:25)

Genesis
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;

*This means He created the earth, and that time was not written. Let me explain in better detail. The time of God is different than our own. His one day is a multitdue of years.
Do not take the bible in literal terms where it confuses you. Instead understand the nature of God.
SO, time being no factor of this word, it could have happened billions of years ago. After all, why would God be in a hurry? He has always been, always will be. Alpha and Omega.

the earth was waste and void;

Ok, He is unhappy with the results of either the life he had already created, or he was going to begin life. It could also be millions of years he saw his creatures aka dinosaurs and what not, and was dissatisfied.

darkness covered the abyss, and the Spirit of God was stirring above the waters.

This can take into account many oppurtunities. For instance, this may mean He was evolving creatures in the waters. This may mean, He was slowly (with a multitiude of OUR time, but nothing to His time), letting the creatures of that era, dissipate and allowing their life cycles to end. He may have been re~evaluting what animals He would let continue or which He deemed unfit for His future creations.
IE, we kept the alligators, cockroaches...(O why O why I wonder. ) He kept some life forms already created. Others He let die. (Good thing too, dinosaurs we not the kindest creatures)

God said, "Let there be Light," and there was light. God saw the light was good. God seperated the light from the darkness, calling the light day and the darkness night. And there was evening and morning, the first day.

Ok, you claim our sun is older than earth, since we cannot explain that fully, we do not know if in this time, God moved the axis of the earth, towards a star he had created when he created the heavens. Now this could very well happened. WE have His word...but we have no sense of how He worked, or the time it took. Even now millions or thousands of years may have evolved.

Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters to divide the waters." And so it was. God made the firmament, dividing the waters that were below the firmament from those that were above it. God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and morning the second day.

: In Scripture, the word firmament denotes an expanse, a wide extent; the great arch or expanse over out heads, in which are placed the atmosphere and the clouds, and in which the stars appear to be placed, and are really seen.
All things of the air were created, like clouds, and atmosphere. Like the ozone layer, the humidity factors, the elements of the air, air pressure. The works. so to speak. This may have taken..again, millions of years our time, but nothing to His.

Then God said, "let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place and let the dry land appear." And so it was. God called the dry land Earth and the assembled waters Seas. And God saw that it was good.

This may explain the Grand canyon. And though not all areas leave impact traces of water on the earth as a sign, the sentence did not say all of earth was covered either. But that the earth was covered, leaving a conclusion that possibly some areas had not been saturated. The vagueness of Genesis gives us our logic to how things played out. For those who misunderstand time and the nature of God.


Then God said "Let the earth bring vegetation; seed bearing plants and all kinds of fruit containing their seed." And so it was. The earth brought forth vegetation, every kind of seed-bearing plant and all kinds of trees that bear fruit containing their seed. God saw it was good. And there was evening and morning, the third day.

Pplants evidently came 1st after the atmosphere, or life of the creatures of today, would not have been sustained. Same with the land masses, and yet, it takes a higher entity to understand the need for food. To sustain life as it were to come.

And God said "Let their be lights in the firmament of the heavens to seperate day from night; let them serve as signs and for the fixing of seasons, days and years; let them serve as lights in the firmament of the heavens to shed light upon the earth." So it was. God made two greta lights, the greater to rule the day and the smaller to rule the night, and He made the stars. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to shed light upon the earth, to rule the day and the night and to seperate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. And there was evening and morning the fourth day

http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/issues/v76/n72/moon.73n.html
<That will show that the moon is indeed younger than the earth.

The God said, "Let the waters abound with life, and above the earth let winged winged creatures fly below the firmament of the heavens." And so it was. God created the great sea monsters, all kinds of living swimming creatures with which the waters abound and all kinds of winged birds. God saw that it was good, and God Blessed them saying, "Be fruitful and multiply on the earth." And there was evening and morning the fifth day.

SO, the creatures of the waters came first, then birds of the air.
As evolution surmises, life began in the waters.

God said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures; cattle, crawling creatures and wild animals." And so it was. God made all kinds of wild beasts, every kind of creature crawling on the ground. And God saw that it was good.

Ahhh, other animals began to take form. So we see the beginnings of more complex creatures.

God said, "Let us (THE TRIUNE NATURE HE HAS...is US)
make mankind in OUR image and likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, over all the wild animals and every creature that crawls on the earth.
God created man in His image. In the image of God He created him. Male and female He created them.

This was His thoughts thus far. Read further and He explains how He created them, and how and why.

SO, do you see, WHY evolution can exist but it exists because Our Creator has created evolving species.
THERE is the beginning of how it went in accord.

*NOTE, the prehistoric animals may not have needed light, note how their eyes were minut in comparison. Also, the brains were smaller, because they did not need to use their senses as we do. For instance and at no time, could we say the animals breathed air. They have bones, but according to what we know, we assume they lived and breathed as we do. Not necessarily true. The smaller brain size according to the cavity of the cranium could be a measure that the necessity to obtain life was at a much lower degree, and more primitive.

IF you would open your eyes to CREATION, YOU WOULD THEN UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION. CREATION DOES NOT TAKE AWAY FROM SCIENCE, BUT GIVES IT A MORE COPIOUS AND VAST UNDERSTANDING.

God is good. Peace.

"I mean, it's like a program that is WAY over our head that we are just beginning to unravel. I would look at that and say, "that couldn't have happened by accident.""
Its pretty daunting at first. But if one studies a DNA code, it is very random. There are redundancies, useless nodes of information and is basically an amalgam of random genes which either on/off for no reason and with many unnecessary dual copies of the same gene.
Its incredibly unelegant to say the least.

"Then why are we not still formed by bacteria? Why has that essense disappeared, after all it took millions of years for it to get it right."
Because another system of reproduction proved to be better at certain things (sharing information between individuals). This allowed traits to spread around more easily, an evolutionary advantage.
There's no problem here.

" Even with time, millions of time, we do know that if a bacteria does not have a host it dies on the ground.
Please explain how it encumbered a growth so magnificent, but now it dies if not hosted by an animal. "
We can grow bacteria without an animal. If you don't like the term bacteria fine, we can use single-celled organism. Single celled organisms still exist today especially in the ocean.
Many of these single-celled organisms have been replaced (or evolved into) more complex ones.
These organisms allow life, but they are in no way the most 'advanced' life and there was no evolutionary advantage to stay in exactly the same shape.

"And evolution states dogs and cats have one ancestry, and yet if shared in DNA, they simply cannot procreate together.
The only animals that can procreate that are not neccessarily at odds in relativity are horses and Donkeys. The outcome, mules. Yet the mule cannot reproduce.
So, if we evolved from a lungfish, frog, amphibian, why are we unable to reproduce with them? "
God I don't know why I try.
After many generations populations which have not for a long time can no longer reproduce together. This is usually caused by genetic changes in the population which make them incompatible.
For things to work, everything must go well, for things to not work you need only a single flaw, this is the Anna Karenina principle.
This holds true in life say a population changed by :
- changing the number of chromosomes they possess no longer being able to reproduce with individuals which did not change
- changing the surface of their eggs and spermatozoons so that they can no longer recognise each other
- changed physically so much they don't copulate (illustrated by tigers and lions which can occasionally have offspring)
It is little genetic changes like these which make reproduction impossible. However we still share many genes with them (humans share 90% with mammals and 99.9% with other humans).

"The theory of evolution does not take into account the DNA factors, and that no matter how hard they try, they will never have one creature reproduce from another even if they were SUPPOSEDLY In the same family. Because the DNA is entirely different."
As I have shown, you only need one different but essential gene for it to not work. The ability to reproduce has little to do with the exact proportion of similar genes.

"Do not take the bible in literal terms where it confuses you. Instead understand the nature of God. "
Finally you've said it. Oh it wouldn't be when it confuses me, it would be when it claims a sexist, racist, slavery-condoning or archaic absurdity.

"The DNA is entirely different, because the DNA did NOT come from the original frog, or whatever animal they claim we came from. "
If your going to start using scientific evidence like DNA, don't distort it. Our DNA is very similar to many other animals, especially mammals (our closest relatives).

" God made two greta lights, the greater to rule the day and the smaller to rule the night, and He made the stars. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to shed light upon the earth, to rule the day and the night and to seperate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. And there was evening and morning the fourth day"
There is no way in hell the Earth is older then the stars. Its nice how you casually ignore mentioning how there is no evidence to support the stars or sun being younger then the Earth.
From what we know of the elements, the Earth materials (being heavy and rocky) must have been created in a high pressure and high energy area. The only places like that are stars.

"SO, the creatures of the waters came first, then birds of the air.
As evolution surmises, life began in the waters. "
I don't understand why you mercilessly attack insignificant details of evolution, and then seem to accept it if you can twist the bible's meaning into being consistent with it.

"*NOTE, the prehistoric animals may not have needed light, note how their eyes were minut in comparison. Also, the brains were smaller, because they did not need to use their senses as we do."
Oh come on! Without light there is no plant life (a few exceptions, say the microbes around see vents) and thus no animal life to live off it.
Furthermore there is NO evidence that shows that there was a time where there was no light and that animals were adapted to it.

"IF you would open your eyes to CREATION, YOU WOULD THEN UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION. CREATION DOES NOT TAKE AWAY FROM SCIENCE, BUT GIVES IT A MORE COPIOUS AND VAST UNDERSTANDING."
Creation apart from contradicting science's claims, simply has no evidence supporting it. Science works on the principle that if there is no evidence supporting a belief, then it is either false or should simply be ignored until there is evidence supporting it.
Creation in the Bible does not justify itself. It doesnt tell us there are sediments of rock all over the world 4000 years ago, justifying the Great Flood.
The Bible only spouts out statements which may be true, but have no evidence supporting them. Thus belief in the Bible is what the Bible claim's it is : a matter of faith. Belief in the BIble is completely subjective and cannot be justified objectively because it is dependant on divine revelation and personal beliefs.

quote:

---

From WHAT WE KNOW of the elements, the Earth materials (being heavy and rocky) MUST HAVE BEEN created in a high pressure and high energy area. The only places like that are stars.

---

Yea, and the fact it is still UNKNOWN belies you to put total credence into that.

Did I mention that quarrels are useless. I am done prooving my points. Mine are valid. Yours are pure hypothetical.
And I wish you luck at the throne of God. Now I dust my feet of you.
God speed, and God Bless.
I did what I could. Your mind is sealed closed. In the end, you are alone. You judge yourself.
Peace.

"Yea, and the fact it is still UNKNOWN belies you to put total credence into that. "
This knowledge on matter formation, is the same kind of knowledge that makes A-bombs work.
Functionality, being able to put a theory to practice, really does make it very legitimate.

"Did I mention that quarrels are useless. I am done prooving my points. Mine are valid. Yours are pure hypothetical. "
You are so condenscending, I may be young but that doesn't mean I'm stupid and closed-minded. Why are mine hypothetical and yours valid? Yours rely entirely on faith and misinformation, mine relies on logic and the scientific method.

I will try this one last time.

CREATION DOES NOT MEAN EVOLUTION DID NOT EXIST !!!!!!!!!!
IT MEANS THAT GOD CREATED AS WE SEE IT AS EVOLUTION.