19 Oct 14
Originally posted by C HessHuman cells are much bigger too. Bacteria cells do not change into human cells any more than a frog changes into a prince.
Well, it wasn't. We are indeed walking, talking communities of bacteria. It's a well known, established fact that the cells of the human microbiome outnumber human cells ten to one. It's also a well supported fact that the eukaryote cell (human cell) looks just the way you'd expect, if it began as different forms of bacteria entering into symbiosis. I've alre ...[text shortened]... s a blink though, with your: "if it appears to contradict the bible it can't be true"-mentality.
19 Oct 14
Originally posted by C HessLynn Margulis didn't do all the thinking for herself. She admits that she got ideas from those before her. She accepted some of those ideas and changed or discarded others in time. I do the same. The difference is that I am not a scientist that actively do experiments to try to confirm those ideas. But even she admits that she gets bad reviews for her work showing that not all scientists in her field are in total agreement with her.
Hm, in your case... 😛
Seriously, you're not thinking for yourself. This much is blatantly obvious. I'm gonna guess that you used those quotes because you've seen some creationist video or read some creationist website that used them. You didn't even realise who Margulis is. You betrayed yourself when you wrote: "This Lynn Margulis makes statements ...[text shortened]... ng someone else.
Now, if you were indeed to sit down and think for yourself, that'd be great.
Many ideas are partly right and partly wrong. If we can eliminate most of the wrong ideas, then we are doing great. But any idea that she may have that I believe is contrary to God's word is not going to get support from me. However, when she comes to a conclusion that is in agreement with God's word, I am certainly more apt to consider it and even quote it. Like I said, I do not have to agree with everything she says to agree with some things she says.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
19 Oct 14
Originally posted by RJHindsExplain why it is that certain organelles carry their own DNA and have membranes, that they're extremely similar to primitive bacteria and that their DNA matches closely with certain free-living bacteria. If you have a better explanation than that eukoryotes formed as a symbiosis of different procaryotes, I'd be curious to hear it. This also explains the greater size in eukaryotes, by the way, since they have to contain what would otherwise be independant cells.
Human cells are much bigger too. Bacteria cells do not change into human cells any more than a frog changes into a prince.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
19 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsExcellent. As I've stated, she was controversial and all of her ideas are not (yet?) accepted by most scientists in the field. However, there is a huge difference between her and you, as you've pointed out: she followed evidence where it led her (through experimentation and investigation of earlier works, like a real scientist), whereas you will only consider evidence that your presupposed opinions can digest. This is precisely why no one should take your claims against science seriously. I'm glad we finally settled this.
Lynn Margulis didn't do all the thinking for herself. She admits that she got ideas from those before her. She accepted some of those ideas and changed or discarded others in time. I do the same. The difference is that I am not a scientist that actively do experiments to try to confirm those ideas. But even she admits that she gets bad reviews for her wo ...[text shortened]... Like I said, I do not have to agree with everything she says to agree with some things she says.
This thread may now be closed.
19 Oct 14
Originally posted by C HessReality, cool word! You actually know what that stands for, what it means?
It's faith in evidence, if anything. Science is funny that way. If your hypotheses or theory is not in line with current evidence, it's discarded as is. As far as I know abiogenesis still have a lot of problems to be worked out. That in no way means we can just sit back and believe in fairy tales. It's never worked in the past and I doubt it works now.
And ...[text shortened]... ut the age of the earth. The question is: will you reconcile your religion with reality, or not?
In Reality we have these tests and theories that where it is shown the earth
is X years old. If you were to just stay in reality and say according to these
tests and theories the earth is X years old, I'd be happy and would not
have a single complaint about 'reality' as either of us see it, but that is not
what you are doing.
Current evidence is always showing us something where what we had
before did not show us, it will always be that way as we learn more.
Shifting sand, all it does is change with time.
Truth or reality will remain what it is, our views of it may change with what
we learn, but that is just our views not reality. So if the scriptures are
telling us the truth, than we have the truth, we have what reality really is.
The truth of scripture would not have to change, and because it does not
share the great flaw and strength of science doesn't mean it is less true. If
reality could show me something that causes me to reject all scripture I'd
have to, not sure how you behave if were the other way around.
Originally posted by C HessAs has been stated, your belief and faith is based on the shifting sand of science theories, whereas our belief and faith is based on s sure foundation of the truth of God's word and Christ Jesus.
Excellent. As I've stated, she was controversial and all of her ideas are not (yet?) accepted by most scientists in the field. However, there is a huge difference between her and you, as you've pointed out: she followed evidence where it led her (through experimentation and investigation of earlier works, like a real scientist), whereas you will only consider ...[text shortened]... s against science seriously. I'm glad we finally settled this.
This thread may now be closed.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.(Genesis 1:1)
19 Oct 14
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsIn other words, science gets WAY closer to the truth BECAUSE it doesnt stay written in stone. You seem to forget the 'shifting' theories, especially of evolution, doesn't change to allow an ape to become a man, the theories just get closer to the truth after each bout with newer evidence.
As has been stated, your belief and faith is based on the shifting sand of science theories, whereas our belief and faith is based on s sure foundation of the truth of God's word and Christ Jesus.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.(Genesis 1:1)
Evidence RULES.
Your bible just SUCKS. As does the Quran.
Personally, I can't wait for BOTH religions to go down the drain of history.
Originally posted by sonhouseBy stating that an ape can not become a man, you are shifting closer to the version in Genesis one. Good for you.
In other words, science gets WAY closer to the truth BECAUSE it doesnt stay written in stone. You seem to forget the 'shifting' theories, especially of evolution, doesn't change to allow an ape to become a man, the theories just get closer to the truth after each bout with newer evidence.
Evidence RULES.
Your bible just SUCKS. As does the Quran.
Personally, I can't wait for BOTH religions to go down the drain of history.
I am not a prophet, but I can almost invision a war between Islam and Christianity coming soon that, I hope, will end Islamic terrorism for good.
19 Oct 14
Originally posted by RJHindsFanatic.
By stating that an ape can not become a man, you are shifting closer to the version in Genesis one. Good for you.
I am not a prophet, but I can almost invision a war between Islam and Christianity coming soon that, I hope, will end Islamic terrorism for good.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
19 Oct 14
Originally posted by KellyJayIt doesn't change completely with time. It gets more and more solid with time. There are aspects about evolutionary theory that haven't changed since Darwin's days, and then there are a lot of questions that have been answered over the last 150 odd years. It keeps getting more and more support in evidence, so I honestly don't understand where you're coming from with all this shifting sands nonsense. You can keep closing your eyes and covering your ears, but in the meantime, science just moves forward. Any theory that's lasted scientific scrutiny as long as the theory of evolution is unlikely to change too radically at this point. That's why it's no longer referred to as an hypotheses. It's pretty solid by now, like it or not.
Reality, cool word! You actually know what that stands for, what it means?
In Reality we have these tests and theories that where it is shown the earth
is X years old. If you were to just stay in reality and say according to these
tests and theories the earth is X years old, I'd be happy and would not
have a single complaint about 'reality' as either of ...[text shortened]... s me to reject all scripture I'd
have to, not sure how you behave if were the other way around.
And that's the reality of things.
19 Oct 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou don't envision such a war, you PRAY for one. Your compassion for the millions of deaths that would follow is amazing. You could care less for ANY of that, as long as it supports your biblical Bull Shyte.
By stating that an ape can not become a man, you are shifting closer to the version in Genesis one. Good for you.
I am not a prophet, but I can almost invision a war between Islam and Christianity coming soon that, I hope, will end Islamic terrorism for good.
19 Oct 14
Originally posted by C Hess"Intelligent" Atheists Left Speechless On A Question On Evolution
It doesn't change completely with time. It gets more and more solid with time. There are aspects about evolutionary theory that haven't changed since Darwin's days, and then there are a lot of questions that have been answered over the last 150 odd years. It keeps getting more and more support in evidence, so I honestly don't understand where you're coming fr ...[text shortened]... as an hypotheses. It's pretty solid by now, like it or not.
And that's the reality of things.
Originally posted by RJHindsHave you forgotten your Alzheimer meds again? You put that one up a few months ago. You really think Darwin thought Apes could become men? We know that doesn't happen so your so-called video is bogus from the opening screen. You are pathetic and desperate.
"Intelligent" Atheists Left Speechless On A Question On Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ckfrn5-86xU