spathariossa Posted January 18, 2005 Posted January 18, 2005 Interesting. Especially in light of discussions of evidence of mitochondrial Eve.
cathqat Posted January 18, 2005 Posted January 18, 2005 [quote name='spathariossa' date='Jan 17 2005, 09:48 PM'] Interesting. Especially in light of discussions of evidence of mitochondrial Eve. [/quote] Yes, it is interesting. Though mitochondrial "Eve" is not supposed to have lived at the same time as y-chromosomal "Adam."
spathariossa Posted January 18, 2005 Posted January 18, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 17 2005, 09:56 PM'] Yes, it is interesting. Though mitochondrial "Eve" is not supposed to have lived at the same time as y-chromosomal "Adam." [/quote] Oh. Well, science doesn't know everything now does it?
cathqat Posted January 18, 2005 Posted January 18, 2005 [quote name='spathariossa' date='Jan 17 2005, 10:00 PM'] Oh. Well, science doesn't know everything now does it? [/quote] *chuckle*
popestpiusx Posted January 18, 2005 Posted January 18, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 17 2005, 05:02 PM'] Abraham Lincoln bought the farm. [/quote] Deo gratias! Requiescat in Pace!
cathqat Posted January 18, 2005 Posted January 18, 2005 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 18 2005, 01:06 AM'] Deo gratias! Requiescat in Pace! [/quote] *LOL* Not a Lincoln fan?
bookwyrm Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 Sorry I didn't read this whole thread, but I think that the main arguments of most creationists is based on a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. It is very complex and difficult to summarize the intricate details that are so important. For example, the organic compounds formed in Miller and Urey's famous experiment did not spontaneously form living cells. The modern atmosphere is oxidizing, i.e., it tends to break down complex compounds, while the ancient atmosphere was reducing due to volcanic activity, etc. and tended to favor the formation of complex monomers and the synthesis of polymers from those monomers. These polymers formed protobionts, aggregates of organic molecules that were not alive per se, but had some of the characteristics of life. These protobionts developed a means of heredity using RNA, which is autocatalytic and doesn't require complex proteins to catalyze its reproduction. Anyway, there's a lot more where that came from, but if you read this much, then congrats. I'll shut up now. I think that evolution is possible, but the idea of it happening by pure chance is absurd. The fact that it is improbable points to a Creator, but the scientific evidence we have points to evolution as the means He employed for creation. My $0.02. Carry on.
popestpiusx Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 (edited) [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 18 2005, 07:41 PM'] *LOL* Not a Lincoln fan? [/quote] Not so much. I have a serious probem with J.W. Booth for turning that worthless ([b]censored[/b]) into a martyr. By the way, I'll try to reply to your post on the use of "historic and literal" later. Edited January 19, 2005 by popestpiusx
popestpiusx Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 New evolution thread: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=27890&st=0entry497713"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showt...=0entry497713[/url]
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now