Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
No, but there was a study done on the subject, that I ran across. It showed that photolysis of water to produce oxygen would be offset by the conversion of the created oxygen by reactions which would also apply to the photosynthesis problem. I'll see if I can find it again. I'm off for a while.
Thought to have been true for a while on the young earth. Rusting iron and all that. We ran out of free iron.
I respectfully disagree. It is a matter of priorities. Life is a small, temporary thing that has little value compared to eternity.
-->I don't find that insignificant myself.
I don't either, except I think my, and your, opinion are hopelessly jaded because we are in the "thick of it" as long as we occupy these biological machines called human bodies. It affects our attitudes about everything. The bias is uncontrollable.
-->Additionaly many of the opportunities available to those of us in the civilized world (beyond but including not having to watch a majority our offspring die in childhood) derive from the fruits of science;
You are talking about what, ultimately, could be called "creature comforts," which are nice, but certainly no end in themselves - and yes, even what keeps us alive and protects us from desease fit into that category, technically. After all, Paul said that for us to die is gain. Death is not something to be avoided at all costs There really is something to be coveted and valued more than life itself, and the search for an ever more comfortable/long life is not a worthy top goal, in my opinion. It's a good goal, when put in it's place. It gives a person something fun to shoot for. That may be why we are never satisfied - it keeps us motivated.
-->and many of our freedoms are not unrelated to "scientific" values such as respect for knowledge and critical inquiry.
I have no respect for knowledge. It is like the binder in epoxy - on it's own it is worthless. An encarta disk has knowledge.
What I value is wisdom - the ability to correctly interpret knowledge and apply it to the larger reality and not my own physical bodies needs, like procreation, comfort and control of my surroundings (often via science).
Stultis, life is a mist, and six billion lives are no more valuable to me than one life. I feel less compassion for the survivors of those killed on 911 than I do the survivors of a 7-11 clerk killed in a robbery. Ultimately every death is a single tradgedy, as experienced by the loved ones of the deceased. But with the 911 survivors, you are left with gobs of money, a literal place in this nations history, and others, by the thousands, with whom to share your grief. The family of the 7-11 clerk has nothing but a mortuary bill and an empty bed.
I bring the above paragraph into the equation for a reference point of relevance.
To me, as it relates to humans, the death of the entire human race is less catastrophic than the death of one who is loved by others, simply because nobody will suffer grief if there is no one left. All of what I am saying is in regards to how all of these issues of life, God, science and the survival of the human race relate to each other on a scale of relevance. Science and what it can bring us is way down there.
But it fascinates me, kind of like a Frank LLoyd Wright design can fascinate me. It is not anything near the "end all be all" of mans existence, however. Science is just below art, in my opinion.
But, I repeat, it's cool.
Plus, why is the Christian/Judeo the theroy the only one that should be concidered? Should every "religious" theory of creation be taught too?
Oldcats
As far as I can tell, the Theory of Evolution makes no mention of God whatsoever. Of course, to a paranoid personality everything is a conspiracy, so maybe THEY want us to think God isn't mentioned when He is really in there in invisible ink ...
YES! You have touched the core of the issue, the kernel. You see, in my reality, my life is most assuredly not all I have. In your world view, it is. Therefore we come from two completely different perspectives, and our goals and beliefs are formed from this. That is why our priorities are different and why we disagree. The funny thing about both religions is that neither can actually be proven, ultimately, and both require a degree of faith.
Nobody alive today that sets it in his heart to not believe the eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus will believe. And he can always say that time corrupted the evidence. So be it. The opposite can be said as well.
I had to open my mind and heart to come to my opinion on this subject. Fortunately I understand the ultimate limitations of my intellect. That is, in my opinion, the very beginning first step of wisdom. It's a long road, though.
Not quite. Milk production is part of the definition of mammal, but it also includes all the other stuff mentioned earlier (dentition -- a biggie, hair or fur, number of holes in the skull, warm-bloodedness, single lower mandible and differentiated ear bones, etc.)
Now, the first two, milk production and fur do not fossilize, but as the others are all found in mammals and they do fossilize -- and this combination is not found in any other class of animals -- any fossils exhibiting the complete collection of stuff that does fossilize and denotes mammal, can be assumed to be a mammal -- except by creationists who cannot see the forest for the trees and refuse to accept any evidence unless in the form of a living, breathing critter (and then they'd probably claim it was ginned up by geneticists in some secret laboratory to mislead good, God-fearing Christians in an effort to damn their souls to Hell).
Christians should reject State funded education. I have.
I hope you never run for office.
BTW - this discussion is of course purely for amusement since DNA evidence has already shown that whales are not related to hippos as evolutionists have claimed using "evidence" similar to the one presented by you and other evolutionists in this discussion.
Still waiting for you to source this or back off. It's 180 degrees wrong.
In Nature, it's bacteria that dissolve rock to digest minerals into living protoplasm.
Of course, according to this site the quote is nearly 100 years old. Obviously you should have learned of this in your studies, unless THEY are trying to keep this knowledge from you. But why put it out on the internet where any yahoo could find it? Ah, the conspiracy deepens... wheels within wheels ...
Au Contraire. The following logical proofs demonstrate the utility of the opposite assumption:
1. Religions have a quality of religiousness.
2. Atheism is the lack of any religion.
3. Not having a religion is an aspect of religiousness.
4. Therefore, atheism is a religion.
1. Religions have a quality of religiousness.
2. Evolution is not a religion.
3. Not being a religion is a form of religiousness.
4. Therefore, evolution is a religion.
1. Walnuts have a quality of walnuttiness.
2. Creationists are not walnutty.
3. Not posessing walnutiness is a form of walnuttniness.
4. Therefore creationists are walnuts.
Tomorrow, we will show that evolution is a color, and that all creationists are '72 AMC Gremlins.
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.