"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Right, and the historicity of it in general seems to be valid according to many findings in archeology. Some things are not so clear.CliffsofBurton wrote:No. It is a History textbook.
Eternity is a long time to be wrong.CliffsofBurton wrote:Certainly. I am not denying that these people ever existed, in fact, I am sure they all did, every last one of them. As far as Jesus of Nazareth's claims of divinity, which I do not personally believe he actually made, I am not so sure.
I prefer your word too. Because adapted is inclusive of the idea that it may simply be a genetic trait of germs to adapt. My sister, a phd, had the audacity to tell me that me getting a flu shot was proof of evolution. I said, "what did the flu virus evolve into?" A virus. Wow. To go from that to common ancestry is a leap of FAITH, and "I am not so sure" to say the least.When a germ becomes immune to a drug, they call it a new strain. the new strain, ignores the drug and attacks its victim once again. Some say it evolved. I prefer the word adapted.
Really, have you looked out your window today? The creation is proof of a creator. A Corvette is proof that its maker, Chevrolet, exist. The only thing you can really argue is, "who." Atheist think nothing created everything. There was nothing, then something, that something exploded and created everything. They can stare into the eye of a newborn baby, and think "big cosmic accident," and come to this conclusion with their brain, that is also a result of a big cosmic accident.If you are looking for scientific evidence of Creation, I'm sorry, but you will not find that either.
How can you make this statement? This is not a scientific statement. 100 years ago you couldn't prove there were invisible waves flying around our heads that could carry libraries of data from one end of the globe to another.If you want to follow the Bible, then fine. Follow it. You will never prove it with science. Ever.
I like this, very neat. Of course, a neo-Darwinian response might something along the lines of multiple life forms in the beginning, and that reproduction was initiated not because of death, but because of other reasons, such as damage and pain. It's hard to tell what they might dream up to keep their theory intact. It would either be fantasized about greatly, and the most tentative resolutions to the problem would be offered up as "overwhelming data in support of a scientific theory", or it would just be denounced as non-scientific belief in the supernatural, or ignored outright.cfldsl wrote:In the beginning, the earth was without form, and void. There was not life; there was not death. There was not reasonable expectation of life; hence, there was not reasonable expectation of death. And it came to pass in the process of time that life was created. But there was still not reasonable expectation of death. But this miraculous creation of life came with a complete and completely functional reproductive system. Thus this living thing was born with the solution to a problem which did not yet exist; hence, such a solution could not have been formed through experience. The prior provision for a problem is called a plan. The theory of evolution utterly denies the presence of any intelligent oversight or control; thus, there could be no plan. Because two contrary propositions cannot both be true at the same time, these last three sentences form a logical contradiction; this is called a fallacy. It is left for the evolutionists to conjure yet another “scientific” explanation which invariably contains much explanation and little science.
The most primitive (ie single-celled) life forms do not reproduce sexually, they divide asexually. This same mechanism is used within more complex lifeforms to replace damaged cells. Development of a more complex reproduction process (not necessarily sexual) would have been one of the major hurdles to producing multi-celled lifeforms. We can see some hints of how this may have been accomplished today by looking at some species of plants that can reproduce asexually (a new individual can be produced from a cutting from its parent). A few animals such as starfish can also reproduce asexually in this way.But this miraculous creation of life came with a complete and completely functional reproductive system. Thus this living thing was born with the solution to a problem which did not yet exist; hence, such a solution could not have been formed through experience.
Cutting something from 'the parent'? How can it be the parent, if it's the same plant it always was? Is it really a 'new individual' or just the same individual, now transplanted elsewhere?waynepii wrote:The most primitive (ie single-celled) life forms do not reproduce sexually, they divide asexually. This same mechanism is used within more complex lifeforms to replace damaged cells. Development of a more complex reproduction process (not necessarily sexual) would have been one of the major hurdles to producing multi-celled lifeforms. We can see some hints of how this may have been accomplished today by looking at some species of plants that can reproduce asexually (a new individual can be produced from a cutting from its parent). A few animals such as starfish can also reproduce asexually in this way.But this miraculous creation of life came with a complete and completely functional reproductive system. Thus this living thing was born with the solution to a problem which did not yet exist; hence, such a solution could not have been formed through experience.
My use of "parent" was just to refer to the original individual, perhaps "donor" would be more precise. But then what would you call the new one? "Recipient" seems very misleading, hence my use of "parent".maxplanck wrote:Cutting something from 'the parent'? How can it be the parent, if it's the same plant it always was? Is it really a 'new individual' or just the same individual, now transplanted elsewhere?waynepii wrote:The most primitive (ie single-celled) life forms do not reproduce sexually, they divide asexually. This same mechanism is used within more complex lifeforms to replace damaged cells. Development of a more complex reproduction process (not necessarily sexual) would have been one of the major hurdles to producing multi-celled lifeforms. We can see some hints of how this may have been accomplished today by looking at some species of plants that can reproduce asexually (a new individual can be produced from a cutting from its parent). A few animals such as starfish can also reproduce asexually in this way.But this miraculous creation of life came with a complete and completely functional reproductive system. Thus this living thing was born with the solution to a problem which did not yet exist; hence, such a solution could not have been formed through experience.
You believe they are 'distinct individuals' yet clearly had they remained uncut, they would not have individuated. The only thing individualizing them would have been an outside force cutting them away from one another. They remain identical but in separate locations. I suppose you could argue that this is 'reproduction', but it doesn't seem to be in the same category of event as for instance birth or cell-splitting. I guess technically this is 'asexual reproduction' of a sort, but that's only because of loose language.waynepii wrote:
The "parent" and "offspring" are distinct individuals, living lives independent of one another, and most likely dieing at different times. In the case of starfish, it's easy to see that the "parent" and "offspring" are clearly as independent of one another as a true parent and any of its sexual offspring. They are very similar to biologic clones.
Division is how cells reproduce, whether they are independent single-cell organisms or a part of a multi-cell organism. Asexual reproduction of multi-cell organisms by division or by sloughing off small "seeds" is the logical extension of the established form of reproduction used by single-cell organisms.maxplanck wrote:You believe they are 'distinct individuals' yet clearly had they remained uncut, they would not have individuated. The only thing individualizing them would have been an outside force cutting them away from one another. They remain identical but in separate locations. I suppose you could argue that this is 'reproduction', but it doesn't seem to be in the same category of event as for instance birth or cell-splitting. I guess technically this is 'asexual reproduction' of a sort, but that's only because of loose language.waynepii wrote:
The "parent" and "offspring" are distinct individuals, living lives independent of one another, and most likely dieing at different times. In the case of starfish, it's easy to see that the "parent" and "offspring" are clearly as independent of one another as a true parent and any of its sexual offspring. They are very similar to biologic clones.
I need to cut up some plants for my garden. I've got a lot of 'asexual reproduction' to instigate.waynepii wrote:Division is how cells reproduce, whether they are independent single-cell organisms or a part of a multi-cell organism. Asexual reproduction of multi-cell organisms by division or by sloughing off small "seeds" is the logical extension of the established form of reproduction used by single-cell organisms.
The reason I brought it up was as an example of how multi-cell organisms could have reproduced before sexual reproduction evolved. Once sexual reproduction evolved, its advantages would have quickly eliminated the need for asexual reproduction.