Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Missing link between land and sea animals found
croxis
I am the walrus
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1748005,00.html[/url]
Comments
Fully Developed Crocadilian head with Fins.
Yep! Missing link. No possible way that it could just be...you know...a new species.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07evolve.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]
(to anyone curious about the meaning of this, it means "I am red hair. Crabman"
[B]Fossils were planted in the earth by Satan! [/B][/QUOTE]
dunno why, but i read that as Sanfam!:confused:
[B]dunno why, but i read that as Sanfam!:confused: [/B][/QUOTE]
The plot thickens..
Illuminati will send someone at your premises about... now.
[B]the scary thing is that the door bell went as soon as i read that post!:eek: [/B][/QUOTE]
I have the Gift!
Behold!
Tomorrow.. you shall find an aardvark.. and the aardvark shall be...
Who or what defined the protocol for these molecules and protein strings and fragments to represent different aspects of a creatures design for example.
It comes down to either chance arrangement or intelligent design. If it is the former, then ANY life we find in the universe will HAVE to be a lot like us in many ways, since that would be the natural progression of protiens etc.
I still contend that God was the author of Evolution, not Darwin, and that both sides of the arguement are way off on many things.
It's obvious to anyone with a thinking brain that there had to be "TIME" for this stuff to happen, that the dino's existed and dwelled upon the land and in the seas for some amount of "TIME".
The Bible is more about man than a complete history of the Earth, so believers need to take into account more history than is paraphrased in the book. Over 15 billion years (as we measure it) are wrapped up in the first couple of chapters.
On the other side of the coin, I think the scientific community is too rigid and building a house of cards in the last few decades. Theories based upon other unproven theories, etc.
I mean, things in nature are typically NOT linear, and who has been around to prove the half life of the things we measure time by. Indeed, if time is even linear for that matter.
But then I don't consider time a dimension like it is concidered in the main stream.
*sigh*
We'll all know soon enough anyway...
:)
[B]Lots of silly stuff about god and bible [/B][/QUOTE]
God's Dead! It's game over!
Long live the new gods!
Long Live The New Flesh!
[B]It comes down to either chance arrangement or intelligent design. If it is the former, then ANY life we find in the universe will HAVE to be a lot like us in many ways, since that would be the natural progression of protiens etc.[/B][/QUOTE]
i have to disagree with you there. even if its chance arrangement, why shouldnt there be other ways of doing it? maybe not as efficiently as us, but still. for instance, everyone thought that all life depended on photosynthesis until chemosynthesis was discovered around black smokers.
and if i play devil's advocate for a minute (ironic, given my views on religion ;)) and accept that there might be a creator, then there should definitely be no reason that there cant be other ways that life could have been designed.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]I still contend that God was the author of Evolution, not Darwin, and that both sides of the arguement are way off on many things.[/B][/QUOTE]
well technically god was the designer of evolution, not the author ;)
Also evolution isn't chance or random, at least at the molecular levels. Atoms arrange themselves based on well defined laws and theories. The universe is lazy -- things arrange themselves in a manner that takes up the least ammount of energy, thats why ammino acids are so common and easy to make.
[B]This is still an excercise in getting better at showing how it all works, but not why it all works.[/b][/quote]
Nothing wrong with that. That is, after all, what science is all about.
[quote][b]Who or what defined the protocol for these molecules and protein strings and fragments to represent different aspects of a creatures design for example.
It comes down to either chance arrangement or intelligent design. If it is the former, then ANY life we find in the universe will HAVE to be a lot like us in many ways, since that would be the natural progression of protiens etc.[/b][/quote]
Completely incorrect. What has evolved here is what is best for the particular environmental conditions we have here. Elsewhere in the universe the environment might be slightly or drastically different, producing different ways for life to exist.
[quote][b]I still contend that God was the author of Evolution, not Darwin, and that both sides of the arguement are way off on many things.[/b][/quote]
Darwin didn't "write" evolution, neither did God. Darwin merely hypothesised it, and his original theory has been significantly refined in the years since. If God comes into the picture, then it's as the ultimate creator of it. Evolution is a theorised process, not a novel. :) (The great thing about this is that science and religion don't preclude eachother automatically - this comes back to the "how" and "why" questions again.)
[quote][b]It's obvious to anyone with a thinking brain that there had to be "TIME" for this stuff to happen, that the dino's existed and dwelled upon the land and in the seas for some amount of "TIME".[/b][/quote]
Naturally.
[quote][b]The Bible is more about man than a complete history of the Earth, so believers need to take into account more history than is paraphrased in the book. Over 15 billion years (as we measure it) are wrapped up in the first couple of chapters.[/b][/quote]
13.1 at last count, as I recall.
[quote][b]On the other side of the coin, I think the scientific community is too rigid and building a house of cards in the last few decades. Theories based upon other unproven theories, etc.[/b][/quote]
These arn't "unproven" theories in the way you mean it. They're tested against the currently known evidence and fit the facts best out of the available theories. When something better becomes available, there will be significant debate followed by acceptance of the new theory, probably in a refined form.
[quote][b]I mean, things in nature are typically NOT linear, and who has been around to prove the half life of the things we measure time by. Indeed, if time is even linear for that matter.[/B][/QUOTE]
Given the current accumulated evidence for the rate of decay of various elements it is reasonable to assume that half--life works. Also remember that some elements have very short half--lives that we can observe, so we can see the process working there and make the reasonable assumption that it works in the same way for other elements, just slower. As for evolution, that's not assumed to be a linear, constant--rate process either.
[B]This is still an excercise in getting better at showing how it all works, but not why it all works.[/B][/QUOTE]
Why would I want to know that? It is probably very depressing anyways..
Much more interesting to know how right now.
For a more complete and elaborate answer than I could think of, see Biggles post..
[B]I still contend that God was the author of Evolution, not Darwin, and that both sides of the arguement are way off on many things.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I had a bit of an epiphany this weekend that I've wanted to share, and this seems the right time.
Most often in Judeo-Christian belief, God is treated as an entity unto itself, but with no corporal form. Likewise, the common belief holds that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, which tends to contradict the previous construct.
It occurred to me, what if we've been thinking of God's existence all wrong. What if, rather this exterior being floating around, God is inextricably bound to the very fabric of the universe? The universe is God and God is the universe? Many of these debates that pit science against religion disappear. For example, if God is the universe and evolution is of the universe, the evolution is of God, regardless of the methods, triggers, failures or successes.
I realize this is not a new thought, and it can lead to some other issues (example: role of evil) but it just seems to me that to long Christians have treated God too much like the proverbial white bearded man rather than an entity that closer resembles the Force.
Jake
I have to say that I'd agree with that interpretation. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that on a personal level I have no problem with that. It does away with the notion of an entity that has created and designed everything, and replaces it with the search for understanding one's self and thus enriching the universe itself. very neat:)
And the Sun was the reason earth was created, and without it there wouldnt be life on earth, so..
Anyway, on the concept of a omnipotent god. Wasnt there some find that proved that omnipotent was just a mistranslation a couple of thousand years ago? The original script said [i]very powerful[/i], and later versions say [i]allmighty[/i]?
[B]What your saying Freejack is just like Delenn's 'universe trying to understand itself'?
I have to say that I'd agree with that interpretation. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that on a personal level I have no problem with that. It does away with the notion of an entity that has created and designed everything, and replaces it with the search for understanding one's self and thus enriching the universe itself. very neat:) [/B][/QUOTE]
Close, but I think its more, the universe knows already, its just letting us figure it out. To paraphase Delenn; [i]We are godstuff.[/i]
Jake
[B][B][COLOR=green]我 是 一红头发的. 只蟹人![/COLOR] [/B]
(to anyone curious about the meaning of this, it means "I am red hair. Crabman" [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually wouldnt it be more like a somewhat stilted "I am the red haired crabman!"
[B]Actually wouldnt it be more like a somewhat stilted "I am the red haired crabman!" [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes.. That's what I wrote there. But I wanted to give engrish translation to it.
You know, I've just had 4 classes of chinese.. so didnt want to look too good.
[B]Yes.. That's what I wrote there. But I wanted to give engrish translation to it.
You know, I've just had 4 classes of chinese.. so didnt want to look too good. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hey, I was just wondering why you were going all Shatner on us. :D