Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Scientists Observe Evolution in Twenty Year Experiment

Well, Hawk, you must be reading it in a way that FORCES it not to be contradictory. That is spin that detracts from the message contained in the Scriptures. I am not trying to say the Scriptures are false. Far from it. I am saying that they are misread by people who want them to say a certain thing that they don't really say. If you start with the premise that every word is true as written, then you must look for ways to make them fit together. If you look for the message the words contain with the realization that some of the words may contradict each other, then you do not have to force the words to say things they do not mean.

Thunder, If it is a simple grade school science question, then why can you not give an answer in scientific terms? Do you know how viruses work? That is at least a middle school question that you seem unable to answer.

This is all a red herring. Life is definable. Even if you believe there is no distinct boundary (I believe there is a clear definition) you still have clear categories of living vs non-living. You are still faced with the complexity of the simplest free standing life form. This needs to be explained. It can not be.

Here is a definition of life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

No. Atheists believe matter evolves into life. This is abiogenesis.

A Young Earth Creationist believes life was miraculously formed in a short period.

An ID proponent is a person who believes the fossil record and in an old earth. They also believe there is insufficient evidence to believe natural selection could have produced what we see. They also believe design can be detected in life. (This is where I stand)

A theistic evolutionist is a theist who believes in a completely materialistic process for the formation of life, but believes in God's existence.

I would say that the definitions of life are not what is in dispute among reasonably intelligent discussion. If the difference between life and matter mystifies you, you ought to be doing more study on your own before entering into a discussion of this nature.

The longer you dialogue the more evident you make it that you are throwing up smoke and mirrors to cloud over the the fact that you cannot explain how life can evolve from matter. If you cannot understand the difference between the two you need more help then what I can give--as you have chosen to be willfully ignorant. Scientists use those terms all the time.

Thunder, If it is so simple, answer the question. If the boundary between life and nonlife does not mystify you then tell all us scientists where it is. You ask me to explain something but can't tell me what that something is. Dodge, dodge, dodge. You must dodge because you have no answer. Lets get away from a reasonably intelligent discussion to a very intelligent discussion. Let us put aside general terms and discuss science with scientific terms that have precise meanings. Lets go from a grammar school discussion to a little higher level. I doubt you can do that. You only want to deal in foggy generalities.

The wikipedia definition (Wikipedia is not a reliable source for scientific study but will do at times to help demonstrate a point.) comments that there is no unequivocal definition of life. Thanks, Walkingman, for supporting my position with your reference. It gives characteristics that help us try to decide if something is alive or not. How many of those characteristics must something have in order to be alive? Viruses do not have all of them, but you claim viruses are alive. Do you even know how viruses work?

How can you base your arguement on a boundary when you can not even tell where that boundary is? You can't. You have to use smoke and mirrors to try to confuse the discussion so that you appear to be right.

Somewhat parallel question: Why are the common computer infections called viruses and not bacteria? That may give you a clue as to how viruses work.

The longer you dialogue the more evident you make it that you do not understand science.

The difference between our respective readings of those passages is that mine was a careful reading, making use of all available clues, while yours was a cursory reading, ignoring obvious clues as to correct meaning. You know the difference between plural and singular, for example, yet choose to ignore that distinction in your interpretation of the second passage so as to permit an interpretation that is contradictory with a previous one. I provided several other examples in earlier posts.

Because they infect a host, substitute their software for the host's software, and then force the host to manufacture and spread other copies of itself to other hosts.

Quite right about the viruses. They do not grow themselves but are grown by the host. Viruses do not metabolize or reproduce on their own but require a living organism to make them.

We will have to disagree about the reading bit. I have read the words numerous times about as carefully as is possible, not in a cursory way as you suggest, and, with the printed words I have in my RSV Bible, still see the sequences and motivations I mentioned. I will also mention that these inconsistencies were pointed out to me by the Professor, the late Dr. Leith, I mentioned above. I think he read the passage rather carefully and had plenty of scholarly background to help him understand the meaning. He was also the one who explained to me over a Thanksgiving dinner in our home years ago that the two versions were written at different times to communicate different personalities of God. One was while the Jews were beating up on other people and promoted the view of God as a fierce warlike God who was stronger than the gods of the enemy. The other version was written during bondage and showed God as being personally concerned with man by providing for his every need in a loving way. Both views of God are worth understanding. The Reverend Dr. L. also suggested that I not let the inconsistencies in Scripture get in the way of my understanding of the meaning of Scripture.

Off to Great Grandma's for some turkey. Happy Thanksgiving to all. It has been fun.

Yep, real viruses are just little lunar landers containing RNA packages to infect host cells. Not much alive about them. The earliest proto-life forms may have operated similarly, though. No telling.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and all.

I got to admit Ringman with this site you have given quite the chuckle for today. I especially like the site constantly linking me to Disney's site.

So where's that leave a Deist especially a Pagan Deist?

I believe science when science says the earth is old.

I believe in a intelligent life force, you know may the Force be with you. I believe this intelligent life force created/designed the ingredients/laws necessary for the universe to come into existence as well as life.

I believe in evolution, natural selection.

Do you know how many highly credentialed law professors will confidently inform you that the Second Amendment merely permits states to maintain armed National Guard units?

Look, this is simple. If I said to you, "Hey Notropis, having made this figurine of a buffalo out of some very special walnut I'm going to give it to you today for your birthday," does that necessarily mean I made it recently? Now add another factor: Just before saying that to you, I told you the story of when I made this figurine back before you were even born. Now, as to my gift giving statement, is it logical to assume that I'm saying there that I just made this figurine with the idea of giving it to you for your birthday?

... the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Been there, done that one. I am not going back.

Have a Happy thanksgiving.

I think I'm off to Grandma IHOP.

Happy turkey day to you too.

Back from the turkey with a full belly.

I realize that scholars do not all agree on the meaning of the Constitution as well as of Scripture but related my initial source of this information to demonstrate that it was not just some skimming through the words that prompted me to read the passages as I do. Who is right? We will never know. There are some rather well studied and well respected theologians that see it my way as well as your's. Simple it may not be.

I understand your example but will point out that the statements do not rule out the possibility that you made it recently just for me after you met me for the first time, especially if you say that now that you have met me and want to make one for me. That is what it says about the animals in Genesis 2, that God made the animals in an attempt to find a fit helper for man. Why would he make the animals for man if man did not already exist?

2:4 "..In the day ( note THE day) that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5: when no plant in the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up-for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground-7; then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils ther breath of life; and man became a living being. (That certainly seems to say that man was created even before the plants.) 8: And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put man whom he had formed. 9; And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight..." (That seems to support that man was made before plants.) Scipping down to 18; "Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I WILL (note future tense) make for him a helper fit for him." 19; "SO (indicating that the motive for making what will be made next is to make man a fit helper) out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air,..." (to try to find man a helper God made the animals after he had made man. This indicates both motive and chronology) 20; "...but for the man there was not found a fit helper for him." (out of the animals God had made in an attempt to find a fit helper for man.) 21; "SO (again indicating motive as well as chronology) the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." (There was not found a fit helper for man among the animals, so God made woman.)

The motives and sequence of events seem to be quite clear if one reads the words as written.

God made the earth and heavens.
God made man
God planted a garden in Eden and made plants.
God made animals to try to find a fit helper for man.
No fit helper was found among the animals made in an attempt to find a fit helper.
God made woman.

No, it does not say that. It says God wanted to make a helper for Adam, like unto him. The like unto him part is crucial in interpreting who God is referring to. He's referring to Eve. After saying this, God begins to relate the story of what he did next, during which he reminds the reader of what happened in the previous "chapter," i.e., "having made the beasts ...," etc., in the past tense.He did not say he made them to be Adam's helpers. He merely recounted that he had made them as an introduction to the story about bringing them all to Adam to name, following which he made Adam's helper, like unto him (i.e., from his very rib). God tells us that Adam didn't find a helper like unto him as an explanation why it was necessary to make Eve. God was never in the dark about whether or not any of the beasts would prove an adequate helper like unto Adam.

If this really is the sequence of events then the Christian God is not the all-powerful, all-knowing God. God should have known that the animals would not be a fit help mate for man. He should have made Eve right off.

Of course, I've always wondered about the bit of Adam first and then Adam gives birth to Eve. So if Eve hadn't sinned would man have been the one to give birth?

Eve could only sin for herself. It was Adam's sin that was imputed to all of humanity.

Hawkeye, your Bible is different from mine. I quoted out of my RSV. "Like unto him" is not in that passage.