U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 04-10-2008, 10:42 AM
 
Location: An absurd world.
5,162 posts, read 5,805,514 times
Reputation: 1959

Advertisements

Making statements without knowing what you're talking about. It's nothing new.


Quote:
You mean, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, at the least. Scientists now believe the entire universe is more than 15 billion years old.
No, 4.5 billion at the most. The planets weren't formed at the same time the universe was.

Quote:
And yes, biologists believe that all organisms on Earth evolved from the equivalent of pond scum.
You can't be serious. It's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about.

Pond scum is classified as a plant. We are animals. Plants can't change into animals and vice versa.

By the way, life coming from non-life is rejected in the scientific community. It's called spontaneous generation. It was proven wrong decades ago.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-10-2008, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 5,612,294 times
Reputation: 1002
We've been over this more than a few times on this forum.

Age of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

//
The age of the universe is the time elapsed between the Big Bang and the present day. Current observations suggest that this is about 13.73 billion years, with an uncertainty of about 120 million years.
//

If you're biased against Wikipedia content itself, then check the references found at the bottom of the page.

We should have distinguished ancient "pond scum" from today's "pond scum." "Pond scum" is one instance of a unicellular organism, which obviously were the precursor to all life on Earth. Not all unicellular life utilizes photosynthesis. Certainly the very ancient unicellular organisms did not.



"Plants can't change into animals and vice versa."

From what kind of ancient organism do you think "plants" descended? Just do the research yourself.

There are unicellular organisms that biologists have trouble categorizing as exclusively 'plant' or 'animal', so there are, in fact, more than two categories of organisms. Check it out.

Last edited by ParkTwain; 04-10-2008 at 10:59 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 10:59 AM
 
Location: An absurd world.
5,162 posts, read 5,805,514 times
Reputation: 1959
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain View Post
We've been over this more than a few times on this forum.

Age of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

//
The age of the universe is the time elapsed between the Big Bang and the present day. Current observations suggest that this is about 13.73 billion years, with an uncertainty of about 120 million years.
//

If you're biased against Wikipedia content itself, then check the references found at the bottom of the page.

"Pond scum" is one instance of a unicellular organism, which obviously were the precursor to all life on Earth. Not all unicellular life utilizes photosynthesis. Certainly the very ancient unicellular organisms did not.
Notice how you couldn't refute my statement about the age of the earth. You obviously didn't know what you were talking about.

And just because an organism is unicellular, that doesn't make it "equivalent to pond scum" as you say. Plant cells and animal cells have different makeups.

Apparently, creationists have resorted to using "pond scum" and "evolved from apes" in an attempt to discredit science because they can't disprove the claims. They'd rather criticize positions that don't even exist to make themselves feel superior. How cute.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 5,612,294 times
Reputation: 1002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haaziq View Post
Notice how you couldn't refute my statement about the age of the earth. You obviously didn't know what you were talking about.

I suppose you read only your own posts! And it's clear your skills at informational research are lacking.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 11:30 AM
 
Location: An absurd world.
5,162 posts, read 5,805,514 times
Reputation: 1959
Umm..no. You're wrong again.

Plant life originated from an organism related to charophycean green algae.

Animal life (and human life) originated from choanoflagellates. Once again, that is not equivalent to pond scum.

The notion that plants and animals can come from the same organism is just crazy.

Last edited by Haaziq; 04-10-2008 at 11:34 AM.. Reason: Clarity.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 11:52 AM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 2,717,421 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559 View Post
Well, this reply will open a whole can of worms, so be prepared. My views are mocked and ridiculed and belittled, but you say you're interested and will respect my beliefs, so here goes .. <again>..

First, for those who believe in Jesus, holding the opinion that the world is as old as science thinks it is has no bearing on salvation. It's just an inconsistency, IMO, with a believer's faith in Jesus and/or God's Word. But I've come to realize many believers in Jesus have many different beliefs. It's what one feels comfortable with, I suppose. The important thing for believers, IMO, is to believe in Jesus and follow Him. That being said....

I personally believe the Bible is God's Word and is wholly reliable and trustworthy on all topics upon which it speaks. That being said, the Bible teaches all land animals (which would include dinosaurs) were created on day six of creation week, the same day as man. Therefore, yes, dinosaurs did exist and yes, we do find their fossils. The Bible teaches that God created mankind (beginning with Adam) in His image. This means fully human, with intelligence, capable of learning, talking, writing, etc.

So, how do I view the scientific evidence presented? Very different from others. As I said, I know fossils exist. What I don't accept just on faith is the dates they assign these fossils. It is my belief there are many erroneous assumptions made in the different radiometric testing processes and due to these errors fossils are assigned very old dates that are incorrect.

Yes, I believe there was an ice age, just not millions of years ago. I believe Neanderthals are descendants of Adam, as all humans are. They may have slight variations as compared to humans of today, but they are still human. I don't believe them to be any part of a "branch" in a supposed evolutionary bush of human ancestry.

As far as pre-dating biblical history, it depends on when you believe the human relationship to God began. I believe it began at the beginning. All of Adam's decendants had knowledge of this relationship. Whether it was written or not at the time, no one knows. I believe as the decendants of Adam spread across the globe, their knowledge of their relationsihp with God became distorted and this is how other various religions got their start. I believe the Bible is the original and accurate depiction of history and faith.

Hope that makes some sense of my beliefs. I'm sure others will be along shortly to tear it apart or what have you. But that's their prerogative. There are several threads dealing with this topic, if you'll do a seach on creationism, theistic evolution, noah's ark or evolution. They have a lot of information in them as well from all different viewpoints.
I agree with mams1559 100%.

The problem that I have with dating methods is that every sample to be tested now requires a piece of paper stating where the fossil was found and in what layer.

This is because many times bones from dinner the night before were tested and given dates of 4 mil years old. To save the technician the red face the new form was created. This is so the technician can fudge the numbers of the sample to give a date corresponding to the layer in the ground. The date assigned to each layer has been pre-determined to match a unitarian model. So where is the science? It just ain't there!

For some reason you put a white coat on someone and they get all kinds of respect from the public. Put a D and r in front of their name and you must believe them even though they do not have the slightest idea what they are talking about. I know... my brother is a medical doctor. It cost the family 100K but hey he gets a great pay check now. Yes, doctors are more educated but come on people think for yourselves.

People who study ancient past were not there and are required to look at the same evidence we can all see. I just come to different conclusions then they do. Unfortunately the conclusion is based on the pre-suppositions that one has. If a person says "there is no God". There is no amout of evidence that will change their point of view. For me my presuppostions are "There is a God" and "The Bible is the word of God". I think that original documents were truely inspired. I also think that we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we read it from our end as well.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 5,612,294 times
Reputation: 1002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haaziq View Post
Umm..no. You're wrong again.

Plant life originated from an organism related to charophycean green algae.

Animal life (and human life) originated from choanoflagellates. Once again, that is not equivalent to pond scum.

The notion that plants and animals can come from the same organism is just crazy.


Maybe you should start here ( Image:Collapsed tree labels simplified.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) then get back to us.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 12:07 PM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 2,717,421 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
This thread is hilarious...I'm sitting here trying to picture Noah herding all those T Rex, Triceratops etc. into his arc....The darned thing would have to be the size of Australia!

News flash folks...Evolution is real, and science will triumph of blind faith every time.
Never read in the bible that Noah had to take full grown animals... Babies from any animal type are small and compact and require small amounts of food. Also a T-rex bite from a baby seems a lot less menacing.

This is a "straw man" arguement that you are presenting. You deduce the opponents belief to the abserd and then disprove it. I could say that today we do not observe evolution occuring so it must never have happened, or, we haven't seen a bat become a horse in the last decade so evolution is false....get it?!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 12:30 PM
 
Location: An absurd world.
5,162 posts, read 5,805,514 times
Reputation: 1959
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain View Post
Maybe you should start here ( Image:Collapsed tree labels simplified.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) then get back to us.
Since you resort to using wiki articles, I will as well.

In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
Evidence for common descent may be found in traits shared between all living organisms. In Darwin's day, the evidence of shared traits was based solely on visible observation of morphologic similarities, such as the fact that all birds have wings, even those which do not fly. Today, there is strong evidence from genetics that all organisms have a common ancestor. For example, every living cell makes use of nucleic acids as its genetic material, and uses the same twenty amino acids as the building blocks for proteins. The universality of these traits strongly suggests common ancestry.
The "Last Universal Ancestor" is the name given to the hypothetical single cellular organism or single cell that gave rise to all life on Earth 3.9 to 4.1 billion years ago; however, this hypothesis has since been refuted on many grounds.

Source: Organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're trying to argue with outdated ideas. Just like when people criticize science on carbon dating, but it isn't even used anymore. Don't try to define the position of scientists for someone who is up to date on science unlike you. It doesn't work.

Allow me to repeat my previous statement. The notion that animals and plants come from the same organism is crazy. That was thrown out around the 70's.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 5,612,294 times
Reputation: 1002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haaziq View Post
Since you resort to using wiki articles, I will as well.

In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
Evidence for common descent may be found in traits shared between all living organisms. In Darwin's day, the evidence of shared traits was based solely on visible observation of morphologic similarities, such as the fact that all birds have wings, even those which do not fly. Today, there is strong evidence from genetics that all organisms have a common ancestor. For example, every living cell makes use of nucleic acids as its genetic material, and uses the same twenty amino acids as the building blocks for proteins. The universality of these traits strongly suggests common ancestry.
The "Last Universal Ancestor" is the name given to the hypothetical single cellular organism or single cell that gave rise to all life on Earth 3.9 to 4.1 billion years ago; however, this hypothesis has since been refuted on many grounds.

Source: Organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're trying to argue with outdated ideas. Just like when people criticize science on carbon dating, but it isn't even used anymore. Don't try to define the position of scientists for someone who is up to date on science unlike you. It doesn't work.

Allow me to repeat my previous statement. The notion that animals and plants come from the same organism is crazy. That was thrown out around the 70's.

You're quoting creationists, like Michael Behe! Did you know that? hahahaha!

PBS Charged with False Claim on Universal Genetic Code
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top