[Akoue]

I would really feel better getting up in the morning if I knew there was a giant tortoise down there. I have never liked this whole business of whirling around at 700 mph (more like a 1000 at the equator) and also hurtling through space, never knowing when we are going to slip our alleged mooring and launch into space (say 'goodbye' to Pluto) or plunge into the Sun.

I'm with you. And tortoises are such comforting creatures. They have such an even measure about them.

[Tj3]

I would really feel better getting up in the morning if I knew there was a giant tortoise down there. I have never liked this whole business of whirling around at 700 mph (more like a 1000 at the equator) and also hurtling through space, never knowing when we are going to slip our alleged mooring and launch into space (say 'goodbye' to Pluto) or plunge into the Sun.

That is why it is good to know God and know that He has established a our place in space and holds us in a fixed orbit.

[JoeT777]

Are you certain? The Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Church claimed he was enjoined from discussing Copernicanism in 1616 and used that against him.

Britannica says that on June 21, 1633, Galileo was found of guilty of "having held and taught" the Copernican doctrine and was ordered to recant, which he did.

It's a long story not normally told - it's just easier to blame it on his Copernicus theories (not only easier, the Protestants love the propaganda), if I have the time, I'll tell it tonight. I need resources I don't have here.

JoeT

P.S. But now I see where Akoue has done it. I'll see if I can find a few blanks to fill in.

[ordinaryguy]

I do not interpret it. I let it speak for itself.

This is a transparent attempt to escape your personal responsibility for interpreting it as you do. Ink on paper does not speak or convey meaning unless it is read and interpreted by a human being. You have chosen a literal interpretation, others choose a metaphorical or allegorical one. In either case, it is a personal choice, and yours is no more binding on them than theirs is on you.

[arcura]

Akoue
You are right. It is either or.
To compound the problem is the fact that there are many verses in the bible which taken literally do not make sense such as kings of the whole world coming to Solomon for advice which includes the American continents or all of the people of Judea going John the Baptizer.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[inthebox]

I have posted at length elsewhere explaining the overall pattern in the fossil record and how it tells in actual pictures (like a children's book) the history of the evolution of life on earth, from the simplest bacteria and the first photosynthetic microbes, to the first animals and terrestrial plants. It is an amazingly complete record and it's in order. You say it does not suggest macroevolution and that hundreds of thousands of biologists are all mistaken in believing this.

So then, tell us what you think the patterns in the fossil record do suggest. Why is it there? Why did God lay it down precisely as He did? Why are there no fossil sharks 2 billion years ago, but yet they appear in rocks that are 400 million years old? Why are there no palm trees in 600 million year old rocks, but there are in 360 million year old rocks? Why do modern birds have hips that look like those of reptiles that lived 70 million years ago? Explain the pattern of increasing complexity and diversity in the fossil record in a way that is consistent with what the Bible says.

Again, where in the fossil or the genetic record does it prove that gene mutaion, not to mention no one can prove the selective factors involved, led to NEW GENETIC INFORMATION that led from reptiles to birds, or to a back bone or to a complex circulatory system?

Macro evoultion, diversity relies on NEW INFORMATION, where is the proof.

You can look at the fossil record and the similarities betwenn living creatures but it is FAITH/ BELIEF that humanity had a common ancestor with apes, a common ancestor with mammals, a common ancestor with bacteria.

Does homology really equal proof of evolution?

A plane has seats, a movie theater has seats, did they have a common ancestor?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't read the bible to find out where fish came from or if black holes exist, the bible tells is we are created, not a product of impossible chance. We are so important that the being that created us, loves us enough to send His only son to die and resurrect for us.:)



G&P

[asking]

I don't read the bible to find out where fish came from ...

So do you want to explain the existence and pattern of the fossil record?
I'm interested to hear how you account for it. Tom hasn't had time to answer this question yet.
Just Asking

[arcura]

inthebox,
I like to believe that some of those huge meat eating dinosaurs did evolve into the much smaller birds that now live on insects, seeds and berries.
Since the fossil record does show some of the later dinosaurs with wings and feathers, it is easy to believe.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

[arcura]

asking,
Apparently inthebox does not or can not.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[inthebox]

The fossil record indicates a biological "big bang" during the Cambrian period. How does evolution take into acoount that?

This is more consistent with , creation.

Again the fossil record, with the above and lack of "missing links" and a lack of transitional forms is more a problem with Darwin's account than it is for creation or ID.

The fossil record is also a diversion from the real question of how NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, that enhances survival and or reproduction, comes about to lead to major, macro if you will, development like the eye or flight or organ systems or art or backbones or warm blood.

We do know for a fact that mutations has led to thousands of human disease. Is this the means by which we came from single celled organisms?

In addition, the fossil record is looking at limited evidence in a backward or retrospective view. Nothing can be proved for certain because no scientist was there to observe and measure development. So that approach takes as much faith as it does to believe in creation.
--------------------------------------------

What purpose or meaning is there for us being here by pure [ near impossible ] odds? In this scenario how is humanity any more special than any other species? If you think god is made up by culture or imagination, the question remains.

On the other hand, creation believes God created us with meaning and purpose. A God that elevates us beyond animals and plants.




G&P

[Tj3]

This is a transparent attempt to escape your personal responsibility for interpreting it as you do. Ink on paper does not speak or convey meaning unless it is read and interpreted by a human being.

Really? Then I guess that you don't believe anything that you read - PERIOD!

The Bible specifically disallows manmade interpretations, and whether you believe it or not, it is possible to read something and read what it actually says.

[Tj3]

So do you want to explain the existence and pattern of the fossil record?
I'm interested to hear how you account for it. Tom hasn't had time to answer this question yet.
Just Asking

I already responded to your post - the fossil record is not what you claim it to be.

Once again you have not read what I posted.

[Tj3]

inthebox,
I like to believe that some of those huge meat eating dinosaurs did evolve into the much smaller birds that now live on insects, seeds and berries.
Since the fossil record does show some of the later dinosaurs with wings and feathers, it is easy to believe.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

Fred, since you bring up the topic once again, where is the evidence for a transition from one species to another?

[michealb]

Fred, since you bring up the topic once again, where is the evidence for a transition from one species to another?

Right here.

From New Scientist:

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations -- the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

[Tj3]

Right here.

from New Scientist:

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations -- the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

So, if I took this to its logical conclusion, are you suggesting that humans who are lactose intolerant are another species because they cannot use a common human food source?

Just because something is a characteristic, even a defining characteristic, does not mean that a variant to that characteristic makes that a different species. A defining characteristic of chickens is 2 legs. Periodically chickens are born with 4 legs ( http://www.hemmy.net/images/animals/...dchicken02.jpg ). Are they a different species? No, no one would ever make such a claim. They are called mutants - which is what these bacteria are also called (read in your excerpt from New Scientist above ("... citrate-using mutants")

Back to your point - if you read the actual paper upon which this article is based, you would find that the bacteria that acquired this chjaracteristic was still E-coli. Indeed, this characteristic, though not common in E-Coli, is not unheard of within E-Coli. Let me quote from his paper:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inability to use citrate as an energy source under oxic conditions has long been a defining characteristic of E. coli as a species (35, 36). Nevertheless, E. coli is not wholly indifferent to citrate. It uses a ferric dicitrate transport system for iron acquisition, although citrate does not enter the cell in this process (37, 38). It also has a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, and can thus metabolize citrate internally during aerobic growth on other substrates (39). E. coli is able to ferment citrate under anoxic conditions if a cosubstrate is available for reducing power (40). The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions (41–43). Indeed, atypical E. coli that grow aerobically on citrate (Cit) have been isolated from agricultural and clinical settings, and were found to harbor plasmids, presumably acquired from other species, that encode citrate transporters (44, 45)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice try, but no cigar.

[arcura]

inthebox,
I find no difficulty in believing in creation and some form of evolution.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

Yes. It sounds like Galileo was rather provoking. He was also writing in Italian instead of Latin (right?), which made everything he wrote so much more accessible. Annoying guy.

Joe, maybe you were thinking of Bruno?

As requested, the Galileo debacle:

Galileo published Discourse on Floating Bodies in 1612 along with a book on sunspots in 1613. The first claim that the Copernican theory was heretical was raised by the Grand Duchess Christina at a banquet citing scripture. The Duchess, t he wife of the Grand Duke Cosimo de Medici, a tutor of Galileo's later circulated a letter saying scripture should not be taken so laterally. The conversation was picked-up by a Dominican priest Tommaso Caccini who, from the pulpit, suggested that the Copernican theory should be declared it heretical. In his denunciation Father Caccini pointed to Joshua commanding the sun to stand still at Ajalon. A Copernican theory wouldn't have permitted the motion of the celestial bodies to stop, thus it was heretical; so much for astronomical acumen of Dominican priests. In any event Father Caccini complained to the Roman Inquisition stating that mathematicians along with Galileo should be banished from Christendom. The complaint against Galileo included that he engaged in private interpretation of Scripture. The charges were summarily dismissed by the Inquisition in February 1615. Cardinal Bellarmine wrote in the summary that the Copernican theory was yet to be proven and until such time should not be applied to interpretation of Scripture.

Case closed? Not exactly. In December that same year Galileo unwisely decided to visit friends in Rome. And, like most men with a new toy (the telescope) and a bright idea (the Copernican theory) went about town troubling the aristocracy with the idea that their secure position in the center of the cosmos had just been usurped with one on an insignificant rock. Consequently the Pope, Paul V called for a formal decision on Copernican theory in February of 1616. Don't forget, at this time there was still little separation from the natural sciences and theology. So a committee of eleven theologians and one natural scientist, a mathematician, pronounced that the Copernican theory was nonsense, after all everyone knew that mankind and his planet was the center of the universe.

Cardinal Bllarmine, a renowned Catholic apologist knew that if the Copernican theory was later to be found correct, it would put the Church in an untenable position of defending a position that is contrary to nature – the Church has held, from Christ, through Peter, that what is true in nature is, in some way, a revelation of nature's creator, God. As a result of the verdict, Galileo's book was put on the index of Forbidden Books. Cardinal Bellarmine convinced the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books to stop circulation until a new preface was written stating that the theory was not proven. Later a document appeared stating that Galileo was enjoined from teaching the theory in any way. Since it was dated February 1616 it is presumed to be to be the back-up if he failed to follow through with re-writing the preface of his book.

As any good Catholic Galieo submitted himself to censure. In an audience with Pope Paul V Galileo was assured support “discouraged and disappointed, but not defeated”, he went to Venice, his home, where he lived and worked freely until 1624.

Publishing his book The Assayer Galileo advocated the atomic theory for the composition of matter. Wisely he avoided the mentioning the Copernican theory. Even still, he was attacked by overzealous critics who saw this theory as an attack on transubstantiation. In 1624, Pope Urban VIII, successor to Paul V stated “that the Church had never declared the works of Copernicus to be heretical and would not do so, “but added “a proof of its truth would ever be forthcoming.” Encouraged, Galileo wrote Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems in 1632 to provide that proof. Looking for an imprimatur, the book was given to the Inquisitor. Father Riccardi said that the Dialogue focused on “the mathematical examination of the Copernican position on the earth's motion, with the aim of proving that, if we remove divine revelation and sacred doctrine, the appearances could be saved with this supposition…so that one would never be admitting the absolute truth of this opinion, but only its hypothetical truth without the benefit of scripture.” Again, bull headedly Galileo continued to insist that his theory was an absolute.

The Dialogue was published by coincidence at the worst possible time, the Thirty years War was raging in Bavaria and the Protestants had succeeded in expelling Jesuits and winning several battles. This forced Pope Urban VIII to prove his orthodoxy and turned on Galileo because of Jesuit denouncement of the Dialogue. This is when the “back-up” document was “found.” In any event Galileo was deposed twice in front of the Inquisition and the charge of disobeying the mystery back-up was dropped, however he was censured for being “vehemently suspected of heresy”. For teaching the heliocentric theories, the Dialogue was banned by the Index for more than 200-years. Galileo was required to make a public abjuration and was placed under house arrest. Petro Redondi said that “this heresy was inquisitorial – that is, disciplinary, not theological or doctrinal – both according to the words of the manuals of criminal heresiology”. In short, Galileo was found guilty of disobedience not heresy. (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)

Now you know why I said it was a complicated story.


JoeT

[michealb]

Sorry TJ3 but this shows that evolution can add a benefit to the dna code. It completely changes the direction of a species, I'd say it could be even considered a new species.
Regardless your never going to get the proof your asking for because evolution doesn't work that way. It would be the same as me calling all Christians liars because god had never personally appeared to me.
How it works is..
Say you have duck and that duck gives birth to another duck and then that duck gives birth to another duck. So you have a duck from a duck from a duck from a duck and so on until you look back a few thousand years and you go you know what ducks use to look different but the scale of change in our life time; since the change isn't intelligently directed is minimal.
So you will never get the proof you ask for because if you did get it, it would disprove evolution.

[asking]

I already responded to your post - the fossil record is not what you claim it to be.

Once again you have not read what I posted.

I must have missed where you said what the fossil record is. Can you give me a link or just summarize in sentence or two? To my knowledge, I have read all your posts in this thread attentively.

I'm not asking what you think it's not, but what you think it is. I'm very interested to know what you think.

Thanks,

[Tj3]

Sorry TJ3 but this shows that evolution can add a benefit to the dna code.

Benefits are rare at best. But the key point is that there is no species change. No one is denying change within a species.

It completely changes the direction of a species, I'd say it could be even considered a new species.

Even the author of the experiment / paper does not make such a claim. He is very clear about that throughout his paper. Your claim is therefore limited to your opinion and perhaps your own personal definition of what constitutes a species. You'd be hard pressed to find any credible biologist who would share your conclusion that this is a new species.