billvon 3,114 #1 August 22, 2006 There have been about a dozen arguments about evolution vs creationism here, and they haven't really gone anywhere. People get all mad, think their religion is being attacked, PA's start etc etc. So I won't try to start another one. However, I did have a suggestion. If there are creationists out there who really believe what they preach, why not prove it? Get real proof, document it, and the scientific world will start to take creationism seriously - and creationists won't be considered nuts any more. Here are a few ways one might do this: 1. Common genomes. All life evolved from common ancestors; therefore they all share the same mechanism whereby their basic phenotype (and the changes accured through the evolutionary process) are stored and passed on to the next generation. The genetic code is based on four basic nucleotide pairs within the DNA molecule; these are organized into triplets that encode for protein synthesis. Indeed, the coding is remarkably similar, with only minor variations even between phyla. Challenge - if all life forms were indeed created independently, there's no reason for them to all have the same basic genetic structure, especially one that specifically allows evolution to occur. Find an advanced animal that uses some system other than DNA for storage of phenotype information, and you will have proven that this animal did NOT evolve from a common ancestor. Fame and fortune will be yours, you will prove a tenet of your faith, you'll sway millions back to God, Stockholm awaits etc. 2. Intermediate forms. So far we have reconstructed our path upwards through our various ancestors based primarily on fossil information. We now have pretty good 'family trees' for many species, including man. Every new fossil we find fits into a niche between two _other_ fossils, although finding that niche can sometimes take time (especially since we often find very incomplete fossils.) Challenge - find an "impossible" intermediate form, like a half-mammal half-avian that does not have any definable ancestry tree. That will indicate that the idea that we have common ancestors may be wrong. Again, fame, fortune, swaying people to God, money etc etc. 3. Chronology. We've gotten pretty good at dating fossils, although no method is perfect. But every fossil we have seen (and can date accurately) fits in pretty well with what we understand about what time each evolutionary step happened. Challenge - find a fossil that's way off. Find a cro-magnon skull in a Paleozoic layer of sediment, and you've gone a long way towards proving that man was around since the first few days of the earth's existence. Fame fortune etc etc. 4. Vestigial anatomy. When we evolve away from a specific phenotype we keep vestiges of the old phenotype for a while. Hence hips in whales, eye sockets in cave fish, the coccyx in humans. Challenge - find a salamander with an 'impossible' vestige, like vestigial nipples (not possible since mammals were not an ancestor of salamanders.) Find an ape with vestigial wings. Fame, adoring crowds, vindication of your beliefs, sponsorship deals with the 700 Club will await. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 August 22, 2006 Quote 1. Common genomes. All life evolved from common ancestors; therefore they all share the same mechanism whereby their basic phenotype (and the changes accured through the evolutionary process) are stored and passed on to the next generation. The genetic code is based on four basic nucleotide pairs within the DNA molecule; these are organized into triplets that encode for protein synthesis. Indeed, the coding is remarkably similar, with only minor variations even between phyla. Challenge - if all life forms were indeed created independently, there's no reason for them to all have the same basic genetic structure, especially one that specifically allows evolution to occur. Find an advanced animal that uses some system other than DNA for storage of phenotype information, and you will have proven that this animal did NOT evolve from a common ancestor. Fame and fortune will be yours, you will prove a tenet of your faith, you'll sway millions back to God, Stockholm awaits etc. I don't like this one Bill. Say, for instance, that we find a totally unique lifeform on Mars that doesn't use DNA as we know it; would that prove God exists? I would think rather the opposite. What about microbes on meteorites found in Antarctica?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #3 August 23, 2006 Challenge: Find any species that can procreate without the sexual organs being completely formed and functional from the very beginning . Pretty hard to survive, otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #4 August 23, 2006 >Challenge: Find any species that can procreate without the sexual organs >being completely formed and functional from the very beginning . Bacterias and amoebas reproduce without sex organs. Volvox can reproduce asexually (by creating new volvox within itself and squirting them out) or sexually (by touching another volvox.) So they can "start" with asexual reproduction and develop sexual reproduction (which has big advantages) later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #5 August 23, 2006 >Say, for instance, that we find a totally unique lifeform on Mars that >doesn't use DNA as we know it; would that prove God exists? I would > think rather the opposite. Well: a) the fame and fortune thing would certainly still apply b) the new non-DNA life form might prove impossible to create without divine intervention c) if it reproduced magically, without any discernible storage of phylogenic information, it would mean one of two things. Either 1) we don't understand as much about biology as we thought or 2) there was some sort of divine intervention. It would certainly open up more possibilities. I agree that if we do find that, we will discover that it could have evolved much as life on earth did. But we won't know that until we find it (if we do.) The very discovery might cause other problems for creationists, since Genesis doesn't mention the whole Mars thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #6 August 23, 2006 QuoteChallenge: Find any species that can procreate without the sexual organs being completely formed and functional from the very beginning . Pretty hard to survive, otherwise.Asexual reproduction, Binary Fission, Budding, Spores, and many other varitiesYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #7 August 23, 2006 Budding... is that like what Gizmo did when he got wet? you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #8 August 23, 2006 QuoteBudding... is that like what Gizmo did when he got wet? Yup also the Hyrdra likes to do a little budding aswellYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #9 August 23, 2006 Quote>Challenge: Find any species that can procreate without the sexual organs >being completely formed and functional from the very beginning . Bacterias and amoebas reproduce without sex organs. Volvox can reproduce asexually (by creating new volvox within itself and squirting them out) or sexually (by touching another volvox.) So they can "start" with asexual reproduction and develop sexual reproduction (which has big advantages) later. Cut a starfish in half and you now have 2 starfish genetically identicalYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #10 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteand you will have proven that this animal did NOT evolve from a common ancestor. Fame and fortune will be yours, you will prove a tenet of your faith, you'll sway millions back to God, Stockholm awaits etc. I don't like this one Bill. Say, for instance, that we find a totally unique lifeform on Mars that doesn't use DNA as we know it; would that prove God exists? I would think rather the opposite. What about microbes on meteorites found in Antarctica? If i recall correctly, We as "carbon based" life forms on earth, can only expect to find either coarbon or silicone based life forms elsewhere. At least according to our limited understanding of the table of elements. So a silicone based life form wi'll not doubt have a differning DNA type moloculeYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 August 23, 2006 QuoteSo a silicone based life form wi'll not doubt have a differning DNA type molocule Silicone life forms already exist . . . have you SEEN Pamela Anderson? Silicon or other non-terrestrial life will almost certainly have molecules significantly different than what we know as DNA. In fact, that's actually one of the difficulties in determining if "life" exists on Mars; we only know how to test for "life" as we currently understand it. What is "life" anyway? Here is a "simple" definition as found in my computer's dictionary; Quote life |l?f| noun ( pl. lives |l?vz|) 1 the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. I dunno, does fire qualify? It grows, reproduces, has activity, metabolizes fuel and oxygen . . . So, clearly, just that alone isn't "life" as we know it and nothing we'd recognize as "life". A virus? How about that? Asexual reproduction via single or double strand DNA or RNA? I really don't like the idea of new life forms proving or disproving creationism or God when it's unclear what is or isn't "life".quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #12 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteI dunno, does fire qualify? It grows, reproduces, has activity, metabolizes fuel and oxygen . . . So, clearly, just that alone isn't "life" as we know it and nothing we'd recognize as "life". A virus? How about that? Asexual reproduction via single or double strand DNA or RNA? I really don't like the idea of new life forms proving or disproving creationism or God when it's unclear what is or isn't "life". There are 5 criteria for life fire does not fullfil one of them, work out what the 5 criteria are and which one fire does not fullfil You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #13 August 23, 2006 QuoteBacterias and amoebas reproduce without sex organs. The point I am making is that nothing can continue its life cycle unless that ability is fully formed in them from the very beginning. Without it everything would die off after the first generation. But, I think you knew that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #14 August 23, 2006 There are (at least) TWO types of creationist. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and those who believe in "creation" but not a "literal" interpretation. Your question should be directed at "fundamental creationist", not simply "creationists". steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Squeak 17 #15 August 23, 2006 QuoteThere are (at least) TWO types of creationist. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and those who believe in "creation" but not a "literal" interpretation. Your question should be directed at "fundamental creationist", not simply "creationists". Steveo, you forgot about the NEW BREED of Looney, "The Intelligent Designers" It's complex so therefore, GOD MUST have designed itYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #16 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteThere are (at least) TWO types of creationist. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and those who believe in "creation" but not a "literal" interpretation. Your question should be directed at "fundamental creationist", not simply "creationists". Steveo, you forgot about the NEW BREED of Looney, "The Intelligent Designers" It's complex so therefore, GOD MUST have designed it You just called steve a looney.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #17 August 23, 2006 QuoteSteveo, you forgot about the NEW BREED of Looney, "The Intelligent Designers" It's complex so therefore, GOD MUST have designed it That's a straw man you have created. Most ID guys belief's are not that simple. While I "believe" in ID, I prefer not to debate it as I'm not adequately equipped to do so. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #18 August 23, 2006 QuoteYou just called steve a looney. He is not the first to do so. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #19 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteand you will have proven that this animal did NOT evolve from a common ancestor. Fame and fortune will be yours, you will prove a tenet of your faith, you'll sway millions back to God, Stockholm awaits etc. I don't like this one Bill. Say, for instance, that we find a totally unique lifeform on Mars that doesn't use DNA as we know it; would that prove God exists? I would think rather the opposite. What about microbes on meteorites found in Antarctica? If i recall correctly, We as "carbon based" life forms on earth, can only expect to find either coarbon or silicone based life forms elsewhere. At least according to our limited understanding of the table of elements. So a silicone based life form wi'll not doubt have a differning DNA type molocule A life form without DNA, or something that works very much like DNA, is extremely unlikely. (Being a good scientist - I will not say impossible). That kind of biological rigidity, without the ability for significant change over generations would be doomed. Unless it lived in a place where nothing changes. There is no such place - the Universe is a very dynamic thing." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Squeak 17 #20 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteSteveo, you forgot about the NEW BREED of Looney, "The Intelligent Designers" It's complex so therefore, GOD MUST have designed it That's a straw man you have created. Most ID guys belief's are not that simple. While I "believe" in ID, I prefer not to debate it as I'm not adequately equipped to do so. Well I have heard quite a few arguments from very well educated persons who also believe in ID, and they too were not adequately prepared either. I find with most Creation versus darwinism arguments, the creation team universally falls into the same argument of saying that since science cant explain it, GOD must have done it. (Paul Davies, coined the phrase "The GOD of the Gaps") Also very few of the argumentors from creationism, actually SUPPORT their argument, preferring to try and find fault in Science instead. Now as a scientist, I'm ALL FOR testing theories, and critically anyalising EVIDENCE. So as was stated in the OP bring it to the table (not you Steve, anyone), lets SCIENTIFICALLY check it out, and see how we go with it.The beauty I find is science is you can have a thousand people test a theory and say it's true, but it only takes one person to prove it false.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #21 August 23, 2006 That's some good stuff, but the hard-core fundamentalists (is there any other type of fundamentalist) have a pat answer for that kind of logic. They claim that God set things up to look that way as a test of our faith. This approach that any evidence you can cite was planted via supernatural powers makes logic and critical thinking useless in the debate. There was a time when anyone taking this approach was summarily and automatically reclassified by me as wacko. Then a friend of mine who was involved in a very serious accident (23 days in a coma, permanent but not too severe brain injury, reduced cognitive ability) went from being a card carrying skeptic to the Lord being his savior. I now understand how life events, be they traumatic ones or the building of little tiny increments of belief, can cause a person to go down certain paths. Now when I see this approach, I just watch to see to what extent the person has suspended their ability to think analytically and use logic. If it appears to pervade all aspects of their life, I stay away. (Who knows what kind of crazy shit they might do). If it is something they disengage just for the sake of accomodating their religious beliefs, then it doesn't bother me, . . . much." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Squeak 17 #22 August 23, 2006 Quote[replyA life form without DNA, or something that works very much like DNA, is extremely unlikely. (Being a good scientist - I will not say impossible). That kind of biological rigidity, without the ability for significant change over generations would be doomed. Unless it lived in a place where nothing changes. There is no such place - the Universe is a very dynamic thing. Well actually extremely unlike in our Universe is still very likely. Given that we are the 3rd rock from the sun, and the Temp zone for life is quite narrow (lucky earth is in it) if you look at how many stars are in our galaxy, there are million and millions of opportunites for other planets to be in the same life zone as earth on all of the other stars in our galaxy. Now think that there are million and millions of other gallaxies, each with their own million and millons of stars and even if the chance of life on othher planets is one in a BILLION you still have billions of stars to have millions of chances. Now one of the biggest limiting factors in this equation is OUR undertanding of what constitutes life. Would we know it if we see it, if it does not resemble what we know as life on Earth?You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #23 August 23, 2006 Quote What about microbes on meteorites found in Antarctica? Only the most circumspect evidence of microbial fossils exists in Mars Rock ALH-84001, and no positive proof. edit for boo-boo in posting mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #24 August 23, 2006 QuoteWhat is "life" anyway? Here is a "simple" definition as found in my computer's dictionary; Quote life |l?f| noun ( pl. lives |l?vz|) 1 the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. I dunno, does fire qualify? It grows, reproduces, has activity, metabolizes fuel and oxygen . . . So, clearly, just that alone isn't "life" as we know it and nothing we'd recognize as "life". A virus? How about that? Asexual reproduction via single or double strand DNA or RNA? I really don't like the idea of new life forms proving or disproving creationism or God when it's unclear what is or isn't "life". Another requirement: Creating or facilitating order from disorder. Life is entropy in reverse. The Universe is basically entropic, except for the influence of Life." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #25 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteSteveo, you forgot about the NEW BREED of Looney, "The Intelligent Designers" It's complex so therefore, GOD MUST have designed it That's a straw man you have created. Most ID guys belief's are not that simple. While I "believe" in ID, I prefer not to debate it as I'm not adequately equipped to do so. Oh yeah. The I-don't-understand-it-so-it-must-be-God arguement. ID is creationism in a very thin disguise. Even the authors of the books that have fed the movement had to admit so in court when they had to turn over draft copies in which they had scratched out creationism and inserted ID. It was a major blow to their claim that they were not inserting their religious beliefs into the classroom. Funny comment I read about that: They do not claim that it was necessarily God who was behind creation, just someone with the skill set to create and put in motion the entire Universe. I imagine that to be a pretty short stack of resumes." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 1 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Royd 0 #13 August 23, 2006 QuoteBacterias and amoebas reproduce without sex organs. The point I am making is that nothing can continue its life cycle unless that ability is fully formed in them from the very beginning. Without it everything would die off after the first generation. But, I think you knew that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #14 August 23, 2006 There are (at least) TWO types of creationist. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and those who believe in "creation" but not a "literal" interpretation. Your question should be directed at "fundamental creationist", not simply "creationists". steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #15 August 23, 2006 QuoteThere are (at least) TWO types of creationist. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and those who believe in "creation" but not a "literal" interpretation. Your question should be directed at "fundamental creationist", not simply "creationists". Steveo, you forgot about the NEW BREED of Looney, "The Intelligent Designers" It's complex so therefore, GOD MUST have designed itYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #16 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteThere are (at least) TWO types of creationist. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and those who believe in "creation" but not a "literal" interpretation. Your question should be directed at "fundamental creationist", not simply "creationists". Steveo, you forgot about the NEW BREED of Looney, "The Intelligent Designers" It's complex so therefore, GOD MUST have designed it You just called steve a looney.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #17 August 23, 2006 QuoteSteveo, you forgot about the NEW BREED of Looney, "The Intelligent Designers" It's complex so therefore, GOD MUST have designed it That's a straw man you have created. Most ID guys belief's are not that simple. While I "believe" in ID, I prefer not to debate it as I'm not adequately equipped to do so. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #18 August 23, 2006 QuoteYou just called steve a looney. He is not the first to do so. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #19 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteand you will have proven that this animal did NOT evolve from a common ancestor. Fame and fortune will be yours, you will prove a tenet of your faith, you'll sway millions back to God, Stockholm awaits etc. I don't like this one Bill. Say, for instance, that we find a totally unique lifeform on Mars that doesn't use DNA as we know it; would that prove God exists? I would think rather the opposite. What about microbes on meteorites found in Antarctica? If i recall correctly, We as "carbon based" life forms on earth, can only expect to find either coarbon or silicone based life forms elsewhere. At least according to our limited understanding of the table of elements. So a silicone based life form wi'll not doubt have a differning DNA type molocule A life form without DNA, or something that works very much like DNA, is extremely unlikely. (Being a good scientist - I will not say impossible). That kind of biological rigidity, without the ability for significant change over generations would be doomed. Unless it lived in a place where nothing changes. There is no such place - the Universe is a very dynamic thing." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #20 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteSteveo, you forgot about the NEW BREED of Looney, "The Intelligent Designers" It's complex so therefore, GOD MUST have designed it That's a straw man you have created. Most ID guys belief's are not that simple. While I "believe" in ID, I prefer not to debate it as I'm not adequately equipped to do so. Well I have heard quite a few arguments from very well educated persons who also believe in ID, and they too were not adequately prepared either. I find with most Creation versus darwinism arguments, the creation team universally falls into the same argument of saying that since science cant explain it, GOD must have done it. (Paul Davies, coined the phrase "The GOD of the Gaps") Also very few of the argumentors from creationism, actually SUPPORT their argument, preferring to try and find fault in Science instead. Now as a scientist, I'm ALL FOR testing theories, and critically anyalising EVIDENCE. So as was stated in the OP bring it to the table (not you Steve, anyone), lets SCIENTIFICALLY check it out, and see how we go with it.The beauty I find is science is you can have a thousand people test a theory and say it's true, but it only takes one person to prove it false.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #21 August 23, 2006 That's some good stuff, but the hard-core fundamentalists (is there any other type of fundamentalist) have a pat answer for that kind of logic. They claim that God set things up to look that way as a test of our faith. This approach that any evidence you can cite was planted via supernatural powers makes logic and critical thinking useless in the debate. There was a time when anyone taking this approach was summarily and automatically reclassified by me as wacko. Then a friend of mine who was involved in a very serious accident (23 days in a coma, permanent but not too severe brain injury, reduced cognitive ability) went from being a card carrying skeptic to the Lord being his savior. I now understand how life events, be they traumatic ones or the building of little tiny increments of belief, can cause a person to go down certain paths. Now when I see this approach, I just watch to see to what extent the person has suspended their ability to think analytically and use logic. If it appears to pervade all aspects of their life, I stay away. (Who knows what kind of crazy shit they might do). If it is something they disengage just for the sake of accomodating their religious beliefs, then it doesn't bother me, . . . much." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #22 August 23, 2006 Quote[replyA life form without DNA, or something that works very much like DNA, is extremely unlikely. (Being a good scientist - I will not say impossible). That kind of biological rigidity, without the ability for significant change over generations would be doomed. Unless it lived in a place where nothing changes. There is no such place - the Universe is a very dynamic thing. Well actually extremely unlike in our Universe is still very likely. Given that we are the 3rd rock from the sun, and the Temp zone for life is quite narrow (lucky earth is in it) if you look at how many stars are in our galaxy, there are million and millions of opportunites for other planets to be in the same life zone as earth on all of the other stars in our galaxy. Now think that there are million and millions of other gallaxies, each with their own million and millons of stars and even if the chance of life on othher planets is one in a BILLION you still have billions of stars to have millions of chances. Now one of the biggest limiting factors in this equation is OUR undertanding of what constitutes life. Would we know it if we see it, if it does not resemble what we know as life on Earth?You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #23 August 23, 2006 Quote What about microbes on meteorites found in Antarctica? Only the most circumspect evidence of microbial fossils exists in Mars Rock ALH-84001, and no positive proof. edit for boo-boo in posting mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #24 August 23, 2006 QuoteWhat is "life" anyway? Here is a "simple" definition as found in my computer's dictionary; Quote life |l?f| noun ( pl. lives |l?vz|) 1 the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. I dunno, does fire qualify? It grows, reproduces, has activity, metabolizes fuel and oxygen . . . So, clearly, just that alone isn't "life" as we know it and nothing we'd recognize as "life". A virus? How about that? Asexual reproduction via single or double strand DNA or RNA? I really don't like the idea of new life forms proving or disproving creationism or God when it's unclear what is or isn't "life". Another requirement: Creating or facilitating order from disorder. Life is entropy in reverse. The Universe is basically entropic, except for the influence of Life." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #25 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteSteveo, you forgot about the NEW BREED of Looney, "The Intelligent Designers" It's complex so therefore, GOD MUST have designed it That's a straw man you have created. Most ID guys belief's are not that simple. While I "believe" in ID, I prefer not to debate it as I'm not adequately equipped to do so. Oh yeah. The I-don't-understand-it-so-it-must-be-God arguement. ID is creationism in a very thin disguise. Even the authors of the books that have fed the movement had to admit so in court when they had to turn over draft copies in which they had scratched out creationism and inserted ID. It was a major blow to their claim that they were not inserting their religious beliefs into the classroom. Funny comment I read about that: They do not claim that it was necessarily God who was behind creation, just someone with the skill set to create and put in motion the entire Universe. I imagine that to be a pretty short stack of resumes." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)