Queso Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 of course it wasn't indepth, eMty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 You keep thinking I'm arguing my beliefs when I'm usually pointing out the inconsistency of various beliefs! Oops. Silly me........I argue that moderate, mainstream religious beliefs (like yours is obviously) are good and have a purpose in society.....I dunno. I am sort of an extremist. I really think that all pianos should be black and over six feet long. Preferably over seven feet. I could easily be considered a piano bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 I wanna grand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Ok..does Bio. believe that god creates the world threw evolution? thats more understandable.Well, I suspect I could speak for myself. I don't really know what God did. I do suspect that God had absolutely no intent to describe the mechanics of speciation in Genesis 1, since that topic was not high on the prioritiy list for the contemporaneous readers. Undeniably, God usually uses reproducible processes in the architecture of Creation. I would have no difficultty in God using evolution. I don't think that anything in early Genesis contradicts anything uncovered by science, as long as you allow for normal usage variations in the early parts of Genesis. I do have difficulty accepting most of the support for gradualism, since I think the weight of the paleontological record is against it. That pretty much leaves us without a solution for speciation, but that does not bother me much. God may well have stuck new phyla in once in a while (miraculously), but I doubt it. It seems sort of unlike Him. I am irritated (as a scientist) when folks talk as if "evolution" is an established fact. Sure, natural selection is. But speciation through serial, gradual mutation is still a leap, and folks act like it is the only game in town. I don't think it is a credible answer, although I don't mind folks hanging on to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Mammoths were predominant in the northern latitudes during an ice age. They liked being wooly. I like being wooly too. I don't shave on weekends. Clearly, I have some mammoth genes.:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 I am sort of an extremist..In your dreams! Extremist? Didja ever burn your draft card? I don't think so....I really think that all pianos should be black and over six feet long. Preferably over seven feet. I could easily be considered a piano bigot.Piano's should only be pre-war Steinways and over 9 feet long. I don't mind the blonde ones though. If only they had DNA and evolved, imagine what we'd have today instead of these Kurzweil approximations... Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 I like being wooly too. I don't shave on weekends. Clearly, I have some mammoth genes.:hihi:Ha! Proof you're succumbing "digeneration" :hihi: Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 What do you all think about "cave men" as early humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 What do you all think about "cave men" as early humans?"Cave men" were likely homo sapiens (that's us!), or Cro-magnon (next jump back), or at least homo neandertalis (to whom we're not directly related). There weren't many caves in Africa... both of the latter had pretty sophisticated cultures: cave painting, burial of the dead, icons of deities, etc... Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 consider this test of a "pre-flood" environment. creating a canopy that would sift all the UV light from going threw it (it was a transparent pink color) and creating 2x the atmospheric pressure of the earth..and i think 2-3x the oxygen than carbon dyoxide...then sticking a normal tomato plant in it...the tomato plant grew extremely large with a ton of large tomatos on it, normaly tomatos plants live like 6 months, this one lived 6 years, and still not die. and it was almost overgrown in the canopy. In the same typy of canopy, putting a poisones snake into it, and mice to feed it...the snake slowly started to ignore the mice..so they had to give it foodtabs, the snake became tame, the venum becams non-lethal..and stopped eating the meet. It can also improve the health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 These cave men have been proven to be humans with bone diseases and other diseases, brought about by their dark damp housing in caves, and bad weather conditions in their environment. consisting of smogy air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 creating a canopy that would sift all the UV light from going threw itOur atmosphere already blocks the majority of UV light coming in from the Sun, and a pink hue could be carbolic acid, but that's not likely since its really poisonous, moreover, there'd be some left over that we could measure.....and creating 2x the atmospheric pressure of the earth..Increasing the atmospheric pressure would require a much higher *amount* of atmosphere we have, but that would have produced many measureable effects on plants and animals with the most notable effect that they'd probably evolve to be *smaller* since a lower surface area per cubic centimeter of volume is easier to support under higher pressures, which we see in deep sea animals (notable exception is the giant squid of course, but that's an *exception*)...and i think 2-3x the oxygen than carbon dyoxide...then sticking a normal tomato plant in it...the tomato plant grew extremely large with a ton of large tomatos on it, normaly tomatos live like 6 months, this one lived 6 years, and still not die.We do know that the ration of oxygen to carbon dioxide has shifted dramatically through time, but plants *like* carbon dioxide, and the tomato plant likely would choke in an oxygen rich environment, not grow to monstrous sizes.....putting a poisones snake into it, and mice to feed it...the snake slowly started to ignore the mice..so they had to give it foodtabsWell, it probably got full. Snakes and all cold-blooded reptiles have very slow metabolic rates....the snake became tame, the venum becams non-lethal..and stopped eating the meet. It can also improve the health.Why would it become tame? Venom would not become non-lethal except over generations of evolution, as would a switch from carnivorous to herbivorous. Carnivores are actually quite healthy. Take sharks for example: unchanged for over 400 *million* years.... Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 These cave men have been proven to be humans with bone diseases and other diseases, brought about by their dark damp housing in caves, and bad weather conditions in their environment. consisting of smogy air.Evidence of various diseases can be found in fossils of the various genus homo, and they are all consistent. Damp housing in caves could have enhanced susceptibility to certain germs and viruses, but afforded protection from beasties and more importantly other homo societal groups. I can assure you however that neither cave paintings nor burial mounds nor Greenland ice borings have shown any evidence of smog or Hummers. Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Such a canopy was created and tested..I am sure my discription of it is not acurate.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 tell me this...if the Bible was not refering to a global flood when it tells the story of Noah's ark and the flood, then why does it say that the ark landed on the top of Mt. Ararat? You probably have run into that question before..but wouldn't it be then, refering to a very possible world wide flood? considering that Mt. Ararat is the seccond tallest mountain in the world? or is it the first...I cannot think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 tell me this...if the Bible was not refering to a global flood when it tells the story of Noah's ark and the flood, then why does it say that the ark landed on the top of Mt. Ararat?I know you insist that since its in the Bible, the part about it coming to rest on Mt Ararat must be true. Since you use the fact that there are many tales of flood in other cultures, why is it that they don't *all* mention Mt Ararat? To those of us who think it is allegorical, saying it was Mt Ararat is convenient because it is close to the folks that were the targets of the original scriptures and they could relate to it. There are those of us who do believe there was a flood (Black Sea inundation from the breaking of a natural dam in the Bosporus Strait is one mentioned by me several times in these forums), and while it was not "global", it certainly affected virtually everyone in the area with a catastrophy that was far beyond imagination, and *begged* embellishment in the *thousands* of years between its occurence and the start of written history. This one is *not* a generally accepted fact, but there is good evidence and there may be more coming.considering that Mt. Ararat is the seccond tallest mountain in the world?Mt Ararat in Turkey is only 16,945ft in elevation, and is nowhere near the tallest mountain in the world. Mt Everest--which is--is over two miles taller!!! Mt Elbrus which is just north of it in the Caucasus range is 18,500ft, more than a quarter mile taller. Davamand to the east in Iran is 18,600ft. Why weren't these used? Because they're further away and were not as familiar to the audience. There is some strong evidence shown by some middle eastern scholars that the name "Ararat" actually referred to a different mountain (possible one of the ones now known as Mount Judi), that could be either in Kurdistan, on the Arabian Peninsula, in Ethiopia or even Ireland! Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Evolution is the theory of one thing turning into a completely diffrent thing...such as a fish into a mouse. there is no evidence of this happening..the only "evidence" for this is threw trying to explain mutations. You obviously have 0 understanding of evolution. A fish does not mutate into a mouse. Your lack of understanding is incredibly obvious. Then again, you showed your opinion sin't worth consideration anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts