MISSING LINK FOUND: Amoeba proteus to Denneus pontificus

Dylan King · Post by **Dylan King** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:59 am

Genesis 1
The History of Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, â€œLet there be lightâ€

finnbogi · Post by **finnbogi** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:36 am

Surely you're joking, Mr. MellowSmokeMan.

Doug@GT · Post by **Doug@GT** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:56 am

bloke wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story ... 26,00.html

I'm not sure how a creature with similarities to both fish and land animals "proves" evolution or "deals a blow" to intelligent design.

All that similarity between species proves is that they had a common designer. Whether that designer was God, natural selection, or pink bunny rabbits is up to your personal beliefs.

Doug "since my Honda and my dad's Toyota both have 4-cyl engines, does that mean they evolved from each other?"

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:12 am

I'm not.

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:26 am

the elephant wrote:Well, I hid as long as I could. Did I at least earn a prize?

Are you saying that you are an example of incompetent design?

Doug@GT wrote:since my Honda and my dad's Toyota both have 4-cyl engines, does that mean they evolved from each other?

Well, in an odd sort of way, you can trace their ancestors back to a single engine, but not a tuba, and since this is a tuba/euphonium BBS, this really isn't the time, or the place

kegmcnabb · Post by **kegmcnabb** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:40 am

MellowSmokeMan wrote:Genesis 1
There is no way we are the result of genetic mutations over millions of years. We are new creatures, created only 6,000 years ago. The earth wasn't, but we were. If we are ONLY a product of evolution, which is survival of the fittest, how can one explain musical genius like Mozart, Frank Zappa, and Miles Davis.

Hmmm....I imagine that Mr. Zappa might disagree, were he still alive.

Bloke wrote:The human is able to compensate in order to believe anything it "needs" to believe...from cult to pseudo science.

Not to mention "organized" religion!

Daryl Fletcher · Post by **Daryl Fletcher** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:42 am

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:51 am

Daryl Fletcher wrote:a simple one-cylinder engine is far too complex for it to just randomly spring up out of raw elements on its own. One could easily argue that a single-celled organism is more complex than an engine.

On the other hand, my family used to own a 1976 Plymouth Fury. I am convinced to this day that no intelligent design was used in the making of that car whatsoever.

No argument, but he said evolved, not created or invented.

And my dad worked for Chrysler during those halcyon years, and even he would agree that the Fury was a product of ineffectual designâ„¢

MartyNeilan · Post by **MartyNeilan** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:06 am

[quote="Scooby Tuba"][quote="Super Smooth"]Are you a â€œtrousered apeâ€

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:30 am

Plymouth Automobiles became extinct about four years ago, if I remember correctly.

Oldsmobiles became extinct last June--they stopped making them the year before.

Daryl Fletcher · Post by **Daryl Fletcher** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:36 am

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:38 am

But it was wrong. They still make them.

Daryl Fletcher · Post by **Daryl Fletcher** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:40 am

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:41 am

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:49 am

Daryl Fletcher wrote:Well, that's a relief. Otherwise, what would we have to talk about?

Contrabass euphoniums

Rick Denney · Post by **Rick Denney** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:51 pm

Wha? Me pontificate? Say it ain't so!

I'm just curious as to how lining up the range of animals who have lived on this earth (many of which still do) from fish to mammal, from dinosaur to bird, from small to large, or from quadruped to biped, confirms the conclusion that one led to the other. The fossil record shows the progression in size or sophistication, but does it show the sequential connection?

Even if it did, would it matter? Would knowing that evolution happened make us less spiritual, or make us less accountable to a spiritual and personal God? In my opinion, we will not find God through the evolution debate. But we may find Him through nature, because "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork".

That's my pontification for the day.

Rick "who has faith that the Genesis account is literally true, but who does not at all know what it really means" Denney

Lew · Post by **Lew** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:37 pm

Rick Denney wrote:Wha? Me pontificate? Say it ain't so!

I'm just curious as to how lining up the range of animals who have lived on this earth (many of which still do) from fish to mammal, from dinosaur to bird, from small to large, or from quadruped to biped, confirms the conclusion that one led to the other. The fossil record shows the progression in size or sophistication, but does it show the sequential connection?

Even if it did, would it matter? Would knowing that evolution happened make us less spiritual, or make us less accountable to a spiritual and personal God? In my opinion, we will not find God through the evolution debate. But we may find Him through nature, because "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork".

That's my pontification for the day.

Rick "who has faith that the Genesis account is literally true, but who does not at all know what it really means" Denney

Of course you are correct that the existence of a fossil showing an animal that has characteristics between those of water dwelling and land dwelling animals does not prove that one followed from the other. It does however show the possibility that it could have happened.

The goal of scientific study is to seek to falisify existing theories, therefore allowing existing theories to continue to have validity or creating the need to build a new theory. This find just continues to allow the theory of evolution to not yet be falisfied. This is of course different from engineering where whether a theory is true or not is less important than whether it works to solve the problem being addressed.

How can any account in any text be literally true when even if written in a language common to most readers different readers will interpret the same words differently? Hermaneutics can provide insight into meaning, but even hermaneutic experts disagree on whether a "pure" hermaneutic interpretation is possible, or even desireable.

I think that Genesis, and the rest of the Torah, is an interesting set of allegorical tales that can provide valuable lessons to help people lead good and meaningful lives. Yet each person who reads these stories will find different meaning in them because the words will mean something different to each. This is especially true when one is reading these tales in different languages, or even in different translations of the same language. Jewish and Christian translations of the same texts often use very different words for the same passges, indicating some intent by those doing the translation to impart a specific meaning, or to promote a certain goal.

MaryAnn · Post by **MaryAnn** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:52 pm

Lew: Amen to that.

MA

Daryl Fletcher · Post by **Daryl Fletcher** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:00 pm

Doug@GT · Post by **Doug@GT** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:15 pm

bloke wrote:
I think that Genesis, and the rest of the Torah, is an interesting set of allegorical tales that can provide valuable lessons to help people lead good and meaningful lives. Yet each person who reads these stories will find different meaning in them because the words will mean something different to each. This is especially true when one is reading these tales in different languages, or even in different translations of the same language. Jewish and Christian translations of the same texts often use very different words for the same passges, indicating some intent by those doing the translation to impart a specific meaning, or to promote a certain goal.
Reading a direct Jewish translation of those books might be an eye-opener for some folks.

As the good book says, when a poor man eats a chicken, one of them is sick.

Well, it doesn't say that exactly, but somewhere there is something about a chicken.

TubeNet

MISSING LINK FOUND: Amoeba proteus to Denneus pontificus

Re: MISSING LINK FOUND: Amoeba proteus to Denneus pontificus