Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hi David,

    If we start with the first bacteria it would be a prokaryotic cell (about 3.5 billion years ago), which divides by binary fission. After that for the next 2 billion years the development of the eukaryotic cell took place...before we go any further let that sink in for a moment...it took 2 BILLION YEARS for prokaryotic cells to evolve into eukaryotic cells. Once eukaryotic cells developed at about 1.5 billion years ago they divided into three groups: the ancestors of modern plants, fungi and animals split into separate lineages, and evolved separately. At about 900 million years ago the first multicellular eukaryotic life developed...then the fun began

    Take care,
    Rose
    OK Rose. Regardless of time scale, 2 billion years is a massive chunk of time out of 3.5 billion years for what seems like a comparatively small step to produce another type of cell. In practice, the change from a prokaryotic cell to a eukaryotic cell might involve a massive step, so we should look at the differences and then explain how those differences came about. If we can do this, then that is one step in the chain that we can agree is an evolutionary step.
    Here is the link to the Wikipedia page showing the different cells: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cells_%28biology%29
    Here are several images for readers to see what we are discussing:
    The top smaller image is the animal cell and the smaller image at the bottom is the plant cell. The images are better seen on the Wikipedia website. The table shows the comparison of the two types of cell (bacterial - prokaryotes and animal and plant - eukaryotes). There are differences in components which need to be explained, so I suggest we try and start with one of the component differences. Do you have any reference material that might help us?
    Name:  275px-Plant_cell_structure_svg.svg.png
Views: 41
Size:  41.7 KBName:  400px-Average_prokaryote_cell-_en.svg.png
Views: 41
Size:  87.4 KBName:  table_prokaryotes_eukaryotes.png
Views: 41
Size:  55.7 KBName:  275px-Animal_cell_structure_en.svg.png
Views: 41
Size:  36.7 KB


    All the best,

    David
    Last edited by David M; 07-19-2012 at 02:32 AM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    Now consider your comment in light of these facts. Why did you go looking for a reason to reject the science before you even understood it? Do you understand what that indicates? What would you think of a person who made up reasons to reject the Bible without ever reading a page of it?
    I am not rejecting science and I am accepting that within the DNA molecule their will be unique signatures proving a relationship to a parent. In just one DNA molecule there are possibly 80 million base pairs; it is not surprising that we shall see similarities and differences; these differences might not be enough to explain certain transitions. Those transitions we will come across as we examine the timeline and the progression of complexity of the various species of plants and animals.

    You say that genes have been turned off, so what does that prove? What if God decided He did not want to use that gene in His next creative step; it does not matter if God were to use a common DNA molecule and pick and choose. We are on a discovery to explain the transitions. This is a mammoth task which we are probably not going to be able to do, otherwise science would have proven it convincingly so that there would be no doubt amongst scientists. It is the elimination of that doubt in your fellow scientists that you have to do.

    At the moment in this thread, I am having a conversation with Rose about the progression from a prokaryote cell to a eurkaryote cell. This is a massive step requiring the formation of new cell components; organelles for example which are not in prokaryote cells.

    We never got around to proving the first cell self-formed and accepted that it might have been created. Can we prove now the transition from one type of cell to the other self-formed, or is this going to require that we accept it was a creative step?

    All the best,

    David
    Last edited by David M; 07-19-2012 at 03:03 AM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post

    At the moment in this thread, I am having a conversation with Rose about the progression from a prokaryote cell to a eurkaryote cell. This is a massive step requiring the formation of new cell components; organelles for example which are not in prokaryote cells.

    We never got around to proving the first cell self-formed and accepted that it might have been created. Can we prove now the transition from one type of cell to the other self-formed, or is this going to require that we accept it was a creative step?

    All the best,

    David
    As of yet scientists can't prove that prokaryotic cells evolved to form eukaryotic cells, but many good theories have been proposed based on what evidence they have. If you want to posit the biblegod as the creator you may, but if that's the case then he took 2 billion years to accomplish his task and in the process made it look exactly like evolution.

    Here is a good site that discusses the different transitional possibilities of prokaryotic =====> eukaryotic.



    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    As of yet scientists can't prove that prokaryotic cells evolved to form eukaryotic cells, but many good theories have been proposed based on what evidence they have. If you want to posit the biblegod as the creator you may, but if that's the case then he took 2 billion years to accomplish his task and in the process made it look exactly like evolution.

    Here is a good site that discusses the different transitional possibilities of prokaryotic =====> eukaryotic.
    Hello Rose
    I am trying to get a solution to the simplest of things from which to build a case for Evolution. It seems like the simplest components of the simplest cell are complex, so getting to the more complex eukaryotic cells is even more challenging when you consider the extra individual parts required.

    I expect it is the simplest things that take the longest to get right. Having a design is one thing and getting a working model is another. Today, we have the advantage of having computer simulations to speed up designs and proving things before committing to make the anything. Computer simulation programs, have to be written ( around some program design) for the simulation programs to work and before you get a good working simulation program working, will involve many revisions to the program. Another question for us to consider is; if we allow for the "God" factor; did God do all the simulations in His "head" before he made the first of anything? Was every conceivable thing designed perfectly before God made it? The alternative to this is that God made things and then developed them further along the lines of Evolution theory.

    I have lots of questions brewing up. The Bible could suggest that man was designed before anything was ceated. Alternatively, if God had made the universe and all the atomic particles and atoms that lead to the formation of stars and planets, did God have the idea of creating life afterwards?

    If you start with nothing and God wanted to produce a "man" in His own image, where do you start from? I am now assuming that God cannot make a carbon copy of himself and thus God is true when He says; I am ONE and there is none, beside me. That is my argument for saying that Jesus could not have pre-existed with God from the beginning. Jesus could not have been made and before God ever had the idea of creating man or the universe. His Son would not have been just an idea and there was no reason or purpose for a Son of God to exist at the very beginning; not until man was made.. Sine you have given up believing in God, the point of Jesus' pre-existence or not is of no concern to you.

    Back to considering the simplest cell for which I have the other thread going with Richard. What do you see as the simplest component of the simplest cell that could self-form and that can be replicated in the laboratory? This is what I want to consider first of all.

    The bacteria cell might appear very simple, but each component is complex. How did the tail of the bacteria form? This looks like "engineering" on a nano scale. I think it is incredible what scientist have been able to find out and the more they have found out has just exposed the complexity and wonder of what I can only describe as "Creation". Consider the flagellum of the bacteria cell; does not this look like engineering to you?

    Name:  629px-Flagellum_base_diagram_en_svg.png
Views: 38
Size:  104.1 KB

    How do you begin to explain how each or those individual parts came to form and come together to form such a wonderful miniature bio-machine? There are something like 50 proteins to make this mechansim. Here is the Wikipedia article of the motion of the bacteria cell.
    From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria
    MovementFurther information: Chemotaxis, Flagellum, Pilus
    Many bacteria can move using a variety of mechanisms: flagella are used for swimming through water; bacterial gliding and twitching motility move bacteria across surfaces; and changes of buoyancy allow vertical motion.[128]

    Flagellum of Gram-negative Bacteria. The base drives the rotation of the hook and filament.Swimming bacteria frequently move near 10 body lengths per second and a few as fast as 100. This makes them at least as fast as fish, on a relative scale.[129]

    In twitching motility, bacterial use their type IV pili as a grappling hook, repeatedly extending it, anchoring it and then retracting it with remarkable force (>80 pN).[130]

    Flagella are semi-rigid cylindrical structures that are rotated and function much like the propeller on a ship. Objects as small as bacteria operate a low Reynolds number and cylindrical forms are more efficient than the flat, paddle-like, forms appropriate at human size scale.[131]

    Bacterial species differ in the number and arrangement of flagella on their surface; some have a single flagellum (monotrichous), a flagellum at each end (amphitrichous), clusters of flagella at the poles of the cell (lophotrichous), while others have flagella distributed over the entire surface of the cell (peritrichous). The bacterial flagella is the best-understood motility structure in any organism and is made of about 20 proteins, with approximately another 30 proteins required for its regulation and assembly.[128] The flagellum is a rotating structure driven by a reversible motor at the base that uses the electrochemical gradient across the membrane for power.[132] This motor drives the motion of the filament, which acts as a propeller.

    Many bacteria (such as E. coli) have two distinct modes of movement: forward movement (swimming) and tumbling. The tumbling allows them to reorient and makes their movement a three-dimensional random walk.[133] (See external links below for link to videos.) The flagella of a unique group of bacteria, the spirochaetes, are found between two membranes in the periplasmic space. They have a distinctive helical body that twists about as it moves.[128]

    Motile bacteria are attracted or repelled by certain stimuli in behaviors called taxes: these include chemotaxis, phototaxis, energy taxis and magnetotaxis.[134][135][136] In one peculiar group, the myxobacteria, individual bacteria move together to form waves of cells that then differentiate to form fruiting bodies containing spores.[51] The myxobacteria move only when on solid surfaces, unlike E. coli, which is motile in liquid or solid media.

    Several Listeria and Shigella species move inside host cells by usurping the cytoskeleton, which is normally used to move organelles inside the cell. By promoting actin polymerization at one pole of their cells, they can form a kind of tail that pushes them through the host cell's cytoplasm.[137]
    Once again, what scientist have found out is marvellous, and what man has been able to with miniaturisation and the realm of nano-engineering is marvellous, but is still a very long way from building anything like this. Manipulating a few atoms to write out the initials "IBM" is amazing, but is a very long way off manipulating atoms to form proteins from scratch, and yet this is postulated to have come about all by chance.

    The fact that you have permitted me to posit "God" into the equation, we can also examine the timescales later. For now we might be close to agreement that God created along the lines of Evolution theory. If that is the case, I am not worried about upsetting Creationists, I am now worried you have a "God" to find out about and how you are going explain this "God". If this unknown "God" exists (sounds like Paul on Mars Hill again) how are you going to declare this God?

    You see, the challenging questions just will not go away.

    All the best,

    David
    Last edited by David M; 07-20-2012 at 05:14 AM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose
    I am trying to get a solution to the simplest of things from which to build a case for Evolution. It seems like the simplest components of the simplest cell are complex, so getting to the more complex eukaryotic cells is even more challenging when you consider the extra individual parts required.

    I expect it is the simplest things that take the longest to get right. Having a design is one thing and getting a working model is another. Today, we have the advantage of having computer simulations to speed up designs and proving things before committing to make the anything. Computer simulation programs, have to be written ( around some program design) for the simulation programs to work and before you get a good working simulation program working, will involve many revisions to the program. Another question for us to consider is; if we allow for the "God" factor; did God do all the simulations in His "head" before he made the first of anything? Was every conceivable thing designed perfectly before God made it? The alternative to this is that God made things and then developed them further along the lines of Evolution theory.



    You see, the challenging questions just will not go away.

    All the best,

    David
    Good morning David,

    The simplest things need not take the longest, nor was 2 billion years needed to go from a prokaryotic cell to a eukaryotic cell if "God" truly were the designer. All that is needed for any simple or complex organism to construct itself is the instructions written in the code of the DNA...that is what changed!

    On the other hand the biblegod did not seem to need any time to create Adam out of the dust of the earth, or Eve from his rib, so whatever way one looks at it a whole lot of time does not seem to be needed for "God", unless he chose the route of designing the DNA and then letting nature take its course.


    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose
    I am trying to get a solution to the simplest of things from which to build a case for Evolution. It seems like the simplest components of the simplest cell are complex, so getting to the more complex eukaryotic cells is even more challenging when you consider the extra individual parts required.
    Hi David,

    The flagellum you posted is the icon of creation "science." If you were trying to "build a case for Evolution" you would begin with the established facts upon which the theory is founded. You would not be posting creationist talking points that seek to undermine the theory by focusing on aspects that some think cannot be explained. But as it turns out, there is evidence for the evolution of the flagellum (see video below).

    Now don't get me wrong. I think it is great to explore how the first cells might have evolved. But this is any area filled with a lot of unknowns because the science is young, so it is the last place any person would begin if they were truly interested in understanding the science. It is, of course, the first place that opponents would look because they are trying to find reasons to reject the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I expect it is the simplest things that take the longest to get right. Having a design is one thing and getting a working model is another. Today, we have the advantage of having computer simulations to speed up designs and proving things before committing to make the anything. Computer simulation programs, have to be written ( around some program design) for the simulation programs to work and before you get a good working simulation program working, will involve many revisions to the program. Another question for us to consider is; if we allow for the "God" factor; did God do all the simulations in His "head" before he made the first of anything? Was every conceivable thing designed perfectly before God made it? The alternative to this is that God made things and then developed them further along the lines of Evolution theory.
    I am utterly mystified by your view of God as subject to human limitations. Our limitations are due to ignorance. We are not omniscient like God is supposed to be. So are you denying that God is omniscient? If not, then why would he need to practice and bumble along like a human scientist or engineer?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I have lots of questions brewing up. The Bible could suggest that man was designed before anything was ceated. Alternatively, if God had made the universe and all the atomic particles and atoms that lead to the formation of stars and planets, did God have the idea of creating life afterwards?
    Again, your question seems to assume that God is not omniscient. Is that your position?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    If you start with nothing and God wanted to produce a "man" in His own image, where do you start from? I am now assuming that God cannot make a carbon copy of himself and thus God is true when He says; I am ONE and there is none, beside me. That is my argument for saying that Jesus could not have pre-existed with God from the beginning. Jesus could not have been made and before God ever had the idea of creating man or the universe. His Son would not have been just an idea and there was no reason or purpose for a Son of God to exist at the very beginning; not until man was made.. Sine you have given up believing in God, the point of Jesus' pre-existence or not is of no concern to you.
    Your logic fascinates me. You take a few words from the Bible and develop a doctrine you take as absolute. Why don't you treat your interpretation of the Bible the same way that you treat other people's interpretation of the evidence from science? I.e. with skepticism that acknowledges your interpretation (or the Bible itself) could be wrong? Are not the words of the Bible like any other "evidence"? They must be interpreted in light of a "theory." Different theories would give different interpretations of the same facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Back to considering the simplest cell for which I have the other thread going with Richard. What do you see as the simplest component of the simplest cell that could self-form and that can be replicated in the laboratory? This is what I want to consider first of all.

    The bacteria cell might appear very simple, but each component is complex. How did the tail of the bacteria form? This looks like "engineering" on a nano scale. I think it is incredible what scientist have been able to find out and the more they have found out has just exposed the complexity and wonder of what I can only describe as "Creation". Consider the flagellum of the bacteria cell; does not this look like engineering to you?


    How do you begin to explain how each or those individual parts came to form and come together to form such a wonderful miniature bio-machine? There are something like 50 proteins to make this mechansim. Here is the Wikipedia article of the motion of the bacteria cell.
    The flagellum is very far advanced over the simple cell so it does not apply to our current discussion. And the creationist argument is misleading anyway. The flagellum is made from components already possessed by simpler cells. That's how it evolved. The parts were not simply assembled all at once. The creationist argument for the flagellum has been debunked. There is good evidence it really did evolve. Here's a quick overview:



    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Once again, what scientist have found out is marvellous, and what man has been able to with miniaturisation and the realm of nano-engineering is marvellous, but is still a very long way from building anything like this. Manipulating a few atoms to write out the initials "IBM" is amazing, but is a very long way off manipulating atoms to form proteins from scratch, and yet this is postulated to have come about all by chance.
    There are two fundamental misunderstandings in your comment. First, Nature BEGINS at the nano-level, whereas we humans are huge by comparison and must develop specialized tools to manipulate atoms at that level. Second, science does not say the structures "came about by chance." On the contrary, scientists understand that molecules combine through natural law and organisms evolution through random mutations and natural selection. It is entirely misleading to reduce all this science to the idea that organisms simply appeared by "chance." Many creationists deliberately mislead people this way. I'm sorry to see that they have successfully duped you too.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The fact that you have permitted me to posit "God" into the equation, we can also examine the timescales later. For now we might be close to agreement that God created along the lines of Evolution theory. If that is the case, I am not worried about upsetting Creationists, I am now worried you have a "God" to find out about and how you are going explain this "God". If this unknown "God" exists (sounds like Paul on Mars Hill again) how are you going to declare this God?

    You see, the challenging questions just will not go away.

    All the best,

    David
    It is good that your concept of how God created has itself evolved to include evolution.

    There is much to discuss, but Rose is taking her man/dog out for his morning three mile hike.

    Talk more soon,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    There are two fundamental misunderstandings in your comment. First, Nature BEGINS at the nano-level, whereas we humans are huge by comparison and must develop specialized tools to manipulate atoms at that level. Second, science does not say the structures "came about by chance." On the contrary, scientists understand that molecules combine through natural law and organisms evolution through random mutations and natural selection. It is entirely misleading to reduce all this science to the idea that organisms simply appeared by "chance." Many creationists deliberately mislead people this way. I'm sorry to see that they have successfully duped you too.


    It is good that your concept of how God created has itself evolved to include evolution.

    There is much to discuss, but Rose is taking her man/dog out for his morning three mile hike.

    Talk more soon,

    Richard
    Richard
    I did not have to attempt to open up this discussion as I have done. If you think I have bee duped, then there is no point for me to continue. The video that you posted, was good in as far as it went. I would like to see the continuation of that to see how the other functioning parts came together to make the flagellum. I am interested to learn of how Evolutionists are explaining these things. I took the Wikipedia article as a scientific article and did not see any bias towards Creationism. I am amazed that scientists find these things out and can say that 50 proteins are involved with the making of the flagellum. I am accepting most things science is telling us. I have a right to be skeptical about some of the evidence science is putting forward, just as much as you are skeptical with what the Bible says.

    It is clear from your replies that I am damned if I believe God is capable of creating everything instantaneously and simultaneously and damned if I introduce any human logic to the situation to try and understand from the science and human perspective. If am not pro every Creationist, why are you slamming me for trying to open up the conversation, in which Creationists will not agree. Why question my beliefs when I am trying to open up the conversation and be reasonable in my thinking?

    I don't think I want to keep justifying every comment I make when trying to open up a line of discovery. Either say something like; "that is an idea worth exploring" or "that idea won't work for this reason..."
    I feel that in these conversations, I am being questioned about every word I say. To have to explain every word and comment is not something I feel is necessary. You might as well ask me why I mix up American and English spelling of words on this forum. If I have to explain everything that is not necessary to explain in order for a meaningful discussion to progress, it is a sure way to turn me off. If we keep challenging each others words, we won't make progress as quickly as we need to.

    If my feet are going to be held to the fire for every comment I make, my feet will be burnt from under me eventually. I think this is why people quit conversations with you. You can feel you are winning, as long as you keep burning people's feet from under them. Because people quit, does not mean that you have won the argument; you are just destroying people's will to continue. All you can claim is that you have the stamina to keep up long interrogations in which people get tired and quit from fatigue.

    All the best,

    David

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Good morning David,

    The simplest things need not take the longest, nor was 2 billion years needed to go from a prokaryotic cell to a eukaryotic cell if "God" truly were the designer. All that is needed for any simple or complex organism to construct itself is the instructions written in the code of the DNA...that is what changed!

    On the other hand the biblegod did not seem to need any time to create Adam out of the dust of the earth, or Eve from his rib, so whatever way one looks at it a whole lot of time does not seem to be needed for "God", unless he chose the route of designing the DNA and then letting nature take its course.


    Take care,
    Rose
    Hello Rose
    We are considering a simple cell. Richard told me the bacteria cell was the simplest. It is a lot simpler than a human cell. Is there a cell that exists without DNA that is simpler? I was wondering if the amoeba cell might be any simpler, but maybe not from what Wiki says:
    Genome
    The amoeba is remarkable for its very large genome. The species Amoeba proteus has 290 billion base pairs in its genome, while the related Polychaos dubium (formerly known as Amoeba dubia) has 670 billion base pairs. The human genome is small by contrast, with its count of 2.9 billion base pairs.[9
    I don't think they are allowing for the 32 chromosomes each of which has a DNA molecule inside. What do you think about the comparison?
    Name:  743px-Amoeba_(PSF).svg.png
Views: 25
Size:  139.2 KB

    OK Richard has entered the discussion and given me a video part explaining how one component of the flagellum had a purpose before the flagellum formed. That is OK, I now look forward to be enlightened about the other parts that make up the flagellum and see how and where they existed before becoming part of the flagellum. I am continuing this line of reasoning until we come to a stop point or not. If Evolutionist can explain how every thing comes together; that is good and you might win your case.

    At the moment, while Evolutionists have faith that they will be able to explain everything given enough time, then as much room should be given to Creationists to have faith that there is a designer and maker involved in the process.

    I am trying to open up a new line of discussion to examine how everything might have come together. To do this, I am ignoring the timescales for the moment and agree that the sequence is possible first of all. To believe in the resurrection or an after life of some kind, it is necessary to believe that God can form the body quickly. Building repeat models can be done very quickly once a working model has been made and all the problems resolved. It is getting to the working model in the first place that takes the time.

    I have introduced a number of questions and it would be helpful if you gave your answer to the questions so I can appreciate what you are thinking. If you cannot explain, other than; given enough time all things are possible by evolution, this is no different to Creationists saying; with God all things are possible.

    I am trying to progress the discussion in such a way that either Evolution can come up with the answers or we have to accept the concept of a designer or intelligence exists. If Richard can concede that the first cell could have been created, then we can continue with our discussions on the Bible as to whether all or part of the Bible has come from God, and which bits might be the fictitious works of man. At least we have some basis for discussing "God". Evolutionists in the main,totally eliminate God . Now if you and Richard are not eliminating God, I am prepared not to eliminate what looks to appear to be evolution based on the evidence of the science presented so far. With an incomplete picture, there is no harm in speculating. Because I am speculating, does not mean I believe everything I say; speculation is not belief and I am opening up a conversation that might lead to a discovery of creative evolution, whereby we all have to change previously held beliefs. As it is, the belief I now have, is being used against me to stifle the conversation before it can get anywhere.

    If we do not want the conversation to progress, we can all agree that since we have got established beliefs, no discussion without bias is possible, and therefore it is pointless ever trying to start a discussion do with Evolution or Creation as it is always doomed to failure.

    All the best,

    David
    Last edited by David M; 07-21-2012 at 03:54 AM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Brisbane - Australia
    Posts
    74

    My two cents worth

    I called this post my 2 cents as I'm always short on time and don't really have time to participate in the forum as I would like too. However I enjoy reading the threads so I might just jump in from time to time with "my two cents worth"

    Okay we have David, Richard and Rose discussing evolution.

    Richard has conceded the first cell may be from God.

    David has indicated he is taking his research very seriously and is making some very good points.

    Rose is also making some good points about the timescales involved etc.

    So we have a first cell possibly from a God, long timefames and as David has pointed out a very high level of complexity!

    So my two cents worth:

    1.God made the first cell or even better "seed" in the way of DNA and the first cell.
    2.We know that we can use artificially made DNA to change how a cell behaves(Plagiarism but it works).
    3.We have billions if not trillions of planets in the universe and in my opinion God must be big!


    Did God kick off the big bang with a special recipe for life to evolve on the planets that fall in the Goldilocks zones around stars?

    I have studied computer programming and DNA is a programming language. What if God was so smart he could create a code that adapts to evolve to the right conditions to survive on millions, billions or trillions of planets?

    What if the asteroids are delivering the "seed" around the universe? - Very intelligent seed which when science fully understands it may even be able to replicate the ingredients and try and declare man God or realise this seed is not evolved and prove a God.

    As for the bible which I have not given up on(I'm struggling!) God inspires these sort of works through man from outside of time? - Maybe he even sends a Jesus in at a special time in mans evolutionary knowledge such as 2000 years ago to give us comfort in this rough materialism type of existence(Disease, wars, famine etc). This could be done on many different planets which may explain why aliens do not visit us.

    I propose the next phase of evolution will now be spiritually. To survive as a species we do need to love one another etc. The world now needs to work together and prepare to occupy more then one planet. There is a big universe out there.

    So in closing if evolution is true it is a highly intelligent process and also a brutal one! - But I guess the will of "the all that is" will prove to make sense when we reach the omega point.

    http://129.81.170.14/~tipler/summary.html

    Hope you like my bit of commentary. I'll jump in on a few posts every now and again but I read most of them.

    I am what I am and I will be what I will be....


    Edit - The bit about aliens not visiting us is because I think they have evolved spiritually and are leaving us to do the same. At some point we may be ready for interaction and even as a Christian I believe with a universe this size God may have planned for life not just on earth. Also I think the spiritual evolution may coincide with the technological evolution when a planet realises they must work in unity to survive.
    Last edited by luke1978; 07-21-2012 at 04:01 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •