The spores that are emitted from fungi and ferns are so tiny, the appear like dust in the wind. Who would have ever thought such specks could exhibit nano-technological wonders like scientists have found recently:
Posted on 09/18/2006 3:42:57 PM PDT by DannyTN
What’s Inside a Spore? Nanotechnology 09/17/2006
The spores that are emitted from fungi and ferns are so tiny, the appear like dust in the wind. Who would have ever thought such specks could exhibit nano-technological wonders like scientists have found recently:
Can we just ignore that stupid little evolutionary piddle for a moment, and enjoy the fascination of these observational facts? The ejection method of spores in ferns is just one of many highly clever and diverse seed-spreading techniques in the plant kingdom, some of which also use desiccation to advantage, like the Scotchbroom, whose pods explode to send seeds as far as 50 feet. A beautiful film Journey of Life illustrates some of these tricks of the plant trade and is well worth watching.
In the second story, think of how delicate and accurate this process has to be. In the quintillions of sperm and spore cells that are produced throughout the world, most of the time the process works flawlessly. The article did not even mention that a reverse process must also take place. Packing is one thing, but what if you can’t unpack the information just as delicately and accurately? Undoubtedly pollen grains have this nanotechnology, too. A human cell can contain six feet of DNA, contained in the microscopic dot of a cell. Many plants have even larger genomes. A seed, sperm or spore must contain not only the entire genetic code, but the nutrients and machinery to unpack it, deliver it and protect it so that the next generation of the species can continue. Could Darwin have known such things, one wonders how different the history of science (and politics) might have been. Now, there’s no excuse.
Next headline on: Plants • Cell Biology • Amazing Facts
Sure sounds like design to me.
Evolution of 95% genetic data compression ping
Rat's I forgot to take the codes out of the heading.
Technology is evolving so fast these days.... I wonder at what the world is going to look like in my twilight years.
Ping for later read when God has seen fit to reveal such wisdom and knowledge to me so that I might understand it.
I've never understood why no one ever seems to consider the possibility of creation through evolution - must it always be either/or?
No doubt Lev-Zimpel-Vogt compression.
Seriously incredibly fascinating. Every time I think we have a leg up on technology we're demoted back to digging with rocks by the likes of a spore.
Interestingly enough, there are some in the intelligent design camp who are willing to accept that the Designer used evolution to give rise to man and other higher life forms. The evos tend to reject this -- they're not willing to accept allies who hold to the need for a theistic mover of evolution. Which, again, is evidence that what drives evolution isn't evidence, or science, but a philosophical bent toward atheism.
There are many who believe just that and many more who have considered that possibility and rejected it. ID advocates have looked at the scientific case for evolution and rejected it. Creationists have looked at scripture and rejected evolution.
If Evolution is right then Genesis appears to be wrong. Evolution requires long ages to occur. People try to reconcile that by assuming that the days of Genesis were long periods of anywhere from a thousand to millions of years.
But if that were true then there are other problems. Plants were created 3 days before the insects that pollinate them. If Genesis days are literal days, no problem. If they are thousands of years, then plants have a problem. Whales were specifically mentioned as being created a day before land animals. Adam was created on the 6th day and lived through the 7th day and his age at death was given in scripture. If the days of creation were a thousand years or more, then Adam's age makes no sense. Adam was created from the dust of the earth, not from evolution. Eve was created from Adam, not from evolution.
If evolution stands, Genesis falls.
Again, taken as poetry describing the unkowable workings of God I see no disparity. Day one need not equal day two. I don't believe the Bible is best read literally.
Explains why my brother-in-law is "missing a few links."
It is obvious that you do not (or don't want to) understand relativistic time...
Well, I can assure you that through his sovereign decree, before the world was founded, he intended that I ping it for later read. So, perhaps he does want me to give it further study. My diatribe was intended to show the inverse of the evolutionary argument and to display the meaning behind Colossians 2:3.
Ok, well, I understand your position. Genesis doesn't match the form of any other known Hebrew poetry. And the use of the Hebrew "yom" with a numeral always means one literal 24 hour day in other parts of the Bible. But even if it is "poetic language", not meant to be read literally, it still has the order of creation wrong according to modern evolution.
We'll just dissagree.
I understand relativistic time as it might explain millions of years of stellar evolution occuring in one earth day. However, I don't understand how "relativistic time" results in millions of years of evolution on earth.
Is the frame of reference someplace other than earth? And if relativity is the explanation, how do you account for plants being created 3 days (millions of years) before insects? Or whales being before land animals?
~~
The frame of reference is that of the One who created the entire, vast universe -- and is eternal and omnipresent -- everywhere at the same time. He is fully able to be managing affairs on the farthest galaxy -- and, simultaneously noting the fall of a sparrow here on Earth. He has no limits -- certainly not that of c...
The days of Creation were His days -- not spins of this chunk of dirt that is a trivial part of His incomprehensibly vast created universe. To insist on the latter is the sinful height of self-centered hubris (AKA "vanity").
The order and manner and timespan in which His creatures developed were according to His will and plan. If He used lengthy processes resembling evolution to achieve His purposes -- so be it. That doesn't mean that mankind (including Darwinists and cosmologists) has those things all figured out yet...
BUT -- that does not excuse mankind for failing to use to use all the talents that He gave us trying to understand how He did things. In fact, He commanded us to "seek understanding". That means that He never intended for us to remain stuck at Moses' level of knowledge...
If our literal interpretation of his outline description in Genesis does not fit the facts of His universe, that only means that we obviously have literally misinterpreted His Word.
His Universe and His Word are both His -- to say that they are not in agreement is to call Him a liar.
I, for one, dare not do that...
Neither do we. But instead of questioning His Word, YE Creationists question the so-called "facts" presented by evolutionists.
You are assuming that evolutionists "know" the facts of His universe and are correct both about their scientific observations and their interpretations of what those scientific observations mean. Therefore, you conclude that we have "misinterpreted" God's word.
YE Creationists do the opposite. We do look to see if we have misinterpreted, but frankly, we don't see it, therefore, we question the alleged "facts".
Thus you use "relativistic effects" to explain why when God says "days" he didn't mean "days" the way man has always understood them. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that's the frame of reference is God, but rather "morning and night" are used repeatedly to qualify the days of the creation week, which does imply rotation and a frame of reference of the earth. The creation week is used as justification for the Sabbath. Jesus referred to the Creation week. And all were done in ways that to the casual reader implies one earth week. But relativity is understood, so I'll grant you that If IF IF the reference frame is God instead of earth, despite the seemingly scriptural evidence to the contrary, then the Genesis days could be longer. I don't believe it, but I'll grant you that possibility.
But now we come to the order of Creation. How do you explain Whales before land animals? How do you explain plants before the insects required to pollinate them? How do you explain that God said He formed Adam from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib? This is no longer an interpretation issue. To accept evolution in it's current form, is to say Genesis doesn't mean what it says. To accept evolution is to say Genesis is not just a dumbed down version that doesn't explain everything, but rather it's factually wrong. I can see the God of Truth giving us a dumbed down version, after all He didn't want us to progress to quickly at the tower of Babel. But to give us a factually wrong version? No, I can't see that.
What's more God through the Apostle Peter, 2 Peter 3, gave a warning about adopting uniformitarian beliefs (that all things continue as they have from the beginning), and that that belief would result in man forgetting Creation and the Flood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.