Att: Foolfromms

[Antlerman]

you always have such excellent responses, your vocabulary is second to none. i guess i am just hard headed, but untill the scientist can prove the 7 steps stated for a cell to form, i will reject it. it just isn't fesible in my mind.

Could you back track a little here for me? I seemed to have missed your requirements for the 7 steps started for a cell to form. Could you point me to where you mentioned this before?

 

I can already tell you off the top of my head however before I look at them, that what we're probably looking at is a case of someone looking at the end result of statistical probabilities, and asking the question after the fact "what are the odds of that!?"

 

The short answer is "as much as it took". What is muddling up the idea is to look at what we have in that cell and assume that that was the one and only goal of evolution. We are looking at what happened, as what was intended . I don't see life on this planet as the purpose of existence, or the particular intended design. I can much more easily see us looking at ourselves and in the height of self-evaluation assume it's all about us!! I wouldn't call you hard headed. I'd call that a normal tendency to look out of our own two eyes and somehow see ourselves at the center of the world. It's just a matter of opening yourself up to seeing things outside of notions of self-importance.

 

Here's an interesting perspective to chew on. Even accepting that evolution happens, but at one moment in the creation of the cell that it took some supernatural action to get the ball rolling, who says that humans are the highest achievement of creation? Are we? Are humans the best suited life form for survival on this planet? Are we the longest lived life form? Are we the most able to defend ourselves against competing biological life forms? Will we be in existence in the millions of years yet to unfold on this planet? I would answer a definitive NO to each of those questions! We are only fairly sucessful at this extreemly brief moment in the long, long, long, long, long history of this planet.

 

As part of primates are "one" successful life form, but certainly not earths greatest survivor! Insects are far more prolific in the world at this moment in time, not to even mention the ages going back 100's of millions of years! They exist in virtually any environment. We can only exist in a narrow range of climates comparatively speaking. Given disease and any mass extinction in the future, I see it unlikely we will be around, but the insect likely will as it it has since early on in evolution. We are not the purpose of creation, BUT we are a part of it. Not better, not less, but a part of it.

 

I could go on and on in comparisons, but you get my point? Man is far from the "image of God" except in his own mind. That God has human attributes is the clearest indication of His nature = man's image of himself. So in the same sense, when you look at the "miracle" of the cell, you seem to be suggesting that the after the fact result of what just happened, was the intended design. It was not. It is simply what happened.

 

It's a hard concept to deal with that we "just are", rather than we were "intended to be". In seeing God and miracles in nature is us starting in our own two eyes and looking backwards down time, creating God, or in this case "the miracle of life" as pointing to and intending for us to be. It is an act of self-reassurance. Nothing more. Now from this understanding, I personally move into a very simple philosophy, "life is what we make of it".

[freeday]

you always have such excellent responses, your vocabulary is second to none. i guess i am just hard headed, but untill the scientist can prove the 7 steps stated for a cell to form, i will reject it. it just isn't fesible in my mind.

Could you back track a little here for me? I seemed to have missed your requirements for the 7 steps started for a cell to form. Could you point me to where you mentioned this before?

 

I can already tell you off the top of my head however before I look at them, that what we're probably looking at is a case of someone looking at the end result of statistical probabilities, and asking the question after the fact "what are the odds of that!?"

 

The short answer is "as much as it took". What is muddling up the idea is to look at what we have in that cell and assume that that was the one and only goal of evolution. We are looking at what happened, as what was intended . I don't see life on this planet as the purpose of existence, or the particular intended design. I can much more easily see us looking at ourselves and in the height of self-evaluation assume it's all about us!! I wouldn't call you hard headed. I'd call that a normal tendency to look out of our own two eyes and somehow see ourselves at the center of the world. It's just a matter of opening yourself up to seeing things outside of notions of self-importance.

 

Here's an interesting perspective to chew on. Even accepting that evolution happens, but at one moment in the creation of the cell that it took some supernatural action to get the ball rolling, who says that humans are the highest achievement of creation? Are we? Are humans the best suited life form for survival on this planet? Are we the longest lived life form? Are we the most able to defend ourselves against competing biological life forms? Will we be in existence in the millions of years yet to unfold on this planet? I would answer a definitive NO to each of those questions! We are only fairly sucessful at this extreemly brief moment in the long, long, long, long, long history of this planet.

 

As part of primates are "one" successful life form, but certainly not earths greatest survivor! Insects are far more prolific in the world at this moment in time, not to even mention the ages going back 100's of millions of years! They exist in virtually any environment. We can only exist in a narrow range of climates comparatively speaking. Given disease and any mass extinction in the future, I see it unlikely we will be around, but the insect likely will as it it has since early on in evolution. We are not the purpose of creation, BUT we are a part of it. Not better, not less, but a part of it.

 

I could go on and on in comparisons, but you get my point? Man is far from the "image of God" except in his own mind. That God has human attributes is the clearest indication of His nature = man's image of himself. So in the same sense, when you look at the "miracle" of the cell, you seem to be suggesting that the after the fact result of what just happened, was the intended design. It was not. It is simply what happened.

 

It's a hard concept to deal with that we "just are", rather than we were "intended to be". In seeing God and miracles in nature is us starting in our own two eyes and looking backwards down time, creating God, or in this case "the miracle of life" as pointing to and intending for us to be. It is an act of self-reassurance. Nothing more. Now from this understanding, I personally move into a very simple philosophy, "life is what we make of it".

 

i will have to disagree with you on that one, i strongly feel we are intended to be and the earth was formed and molded into what we see now for us by God. but that is just a difference of opinions.

 

as far as the statistics, that was not where i was going. i am talking about the steps outlined by Maynard Smith and Szathmary. which are strong evolutionist. they spelled out 7 steps on how a cell would come to be.

[Skankboy]

i will have to disagree with you on that one, i strongly feel we are intended to be and the earth was formed and molded into what we see now for us by God.

 

I would wonder then why we are NOT able to survive anything other than tropical climates without technology? Seems odd that a world designed specifically for us should have the majority of it's ecosystems incompatible with our basic biological needs...

 

[freeday]

i will have to disagree with you on that one, i strongly feel we are intended to be and the earth was formed and molded into what we see now for us by God.

 

I would wonder then why we are NOT able to survive anything other than tropical climates without technology? Seems odd that a world designed specifically for us should have the majority of it's ecosystems incompatible with our basic biological needs...

 

 

i don't get what your talking about, people do live in the tropics without AC, have you ever gone on a mission trip to southamerica. but just to point out God's plan. God designed us to adapt. we have 3.2 billion pairs of base DNA, which allows for a vast amout of potentianl variations. people who live near the equator, have more melanin, thus their skin is darker which protects them from the suns harmfull UV rays.

[Guest foolfromms]

i don't get what your talking about, people do live in the tropics without AC, have you ever gone on a mission trip to southamerica. but just to point out God's plan. God designed us to adapt. we have 3.2 billion pairs of base DNA, which allows for a vast amout of potentianl variations. people who live near the equator, have more melanin, thus their skin is darker which protects them from the suns harmfull UV rays.

 

Hi Freeday!

 

I've been off a few days, hope you had a good fourth! I must say I'm impressed by your amount of posts, you jumped right in! The thing is you must open your mind! Your right in saying you don't get it because you refuse to see it!

 

Your above quote is a perfect example of evolution in action, as we Humans migrated North out of Africa and into Europe our dark skin didn't allow the easy take up of Vitamin D so our skin became whiter over time because of natural selection. It had nothing to do with any god. I've heard it would take about 10,000 years.

 

I'm ashamed, you've outposted the hell out of me. You have to be learning something here, lots of good information.

 

Will

[freeday]

i don't get what your talking about, people do live in the tropics without AC, have you ever gone on a mission trip to southamerica. but just to point out God's plan. God designed us to adapt. we have 3.2 billion pairs of base DNA, which allows for a vast amout of potentianl variations. people who live near the equator, have more melanin, thus their skin is darker which protects them from the suns harmfull UV rays.

 

Hi Freeday!

 

I've been off a few days, hope you had a good fourth! I must say I'm impressed by your amount of posts, you jumped right in! The thing is you must open your mind! Your right in saying you don't get it because you refuse to see it!

 

Your above quote is a perfect example of evolution in action, as we Humans migrated North out of Africa and into Europe our dark skin didn't allow the easy take up of Vitamin D so our skin became whiter over time because of natural selection. It had nothing to do with any god. I've heard it would take about 10,000 years.

 

I'm ashamed, you've outposted the hell out of me. You have to be learning something here, lots of good information.

 

Will

 

whats up buddy, haven't seen you on here in quite a while. had a good 4th, grilled out, the ussuall stuff. i feel sure you had a party or two.

 

i am going to agree with you. that was a perfect example of evolution (change). but i would like to point out that it is a variation within the existing DNA. it is an adaptation entirely within the confines of the species. this is totally different than evolution between genotypes which creates new and different DNA structures. you wouldn't consider a white person a different species over a black person. you are very right in the natural selection. the tendency for favorable genes to predominat in a species ot allow for survival is very obvious. but wouldn't you think that an intelegent designer (God) would design such adaptability into his creation.

[Skankboy]

i don't get what your talking about, people do live in the tropics without AC, have you ever gone on a mission trip to southamerica. but just to point out God's plan. God designed us to adapt. we have 3.2 billion pairs of base DNA, which allows for a vast amout of potentianl variations. people who live near the equator, have more melanin, thus their skin is darker which protects them from the suns harmfull UV rays.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear Freeday, because this is the exact opposite of my meaning. Humans are devestatingly frail, vunerable creatures. Without our culture and technology we CANNOT survive in all but the most tropical environments (you know, like Africa, where most modern anthropologist believe we orignated?). Try going through a winter in Maine with no clothes or fire and tell me how well you get along.

 

It's like a puddle saying the world must have been designed for it because it "exactly" fits the hole it has filled. Take off your "homo superior" glasses and see that we are by no means the ideal the earth was designed around. As stated before, if you want to looks at what animals are most successful on this planet, the primates rate fairly low. Bacteria and insects are by far better "designed" for life on this planet...