That would be this guy:
Posted on 11/04/2005 5:00:06 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Origen is generally considered Mr. Allegorical interpretation but that is really too simple an explanation. He "granted to them a sophistication of intention and composition which rose beyond the simple dichotomies of “literal” and “symbolic”.."
or so says the instructor of my creation class.
Would Origenalist Judges take the Constitution as allegory? (Or allergy?)
So it's really more like "You kids get off my floe!" then...
Origen is generally considered Mr. Allegorical interpretation but that is really too simple an explanation.
Huh? What? I'm not familiar with Mr. Allegorical.
It's been a long time since I've had evolution so my memory on the order of it is somewhat foggy.
So the fossil record shows that mammals appeared before birds, if I read that correctly?
What are mammal-like reptiles? IOW, How is a reptile mammal-like?
Did mammals and dinosaurs evolve from a common ancestor or are mammals considered a branch off of dinosaurs and where do birds fit in? Because of their egg laying, I would presume that it's thought that they decended from reptiles, correct? I've seen a diagram called the web of life or tree of life on other threads but couldn't find anything useful when I tried googling it. There's just way too much info out there and I wasn't sure where to start.
That would be this guy:
I explained the stumbling block idea in post 155. It's a reference to Origen.
That would then make spontaneous generation an unfalsifiable theory. It should therefore be rejected immediately as unscientific.
This is faintly ridiculous. If life were such a foregone conclusion, then we should have been able to create it long before now. I mean, we have the finished product available everywhere for study and the reverse engineering is pretty straightforward for the simplest bacterial cells. We know pretty much all the important chemicals and how they're put together. Quit worrying about what the primordial Earth was like and just create the optimal conditions in the laboratory and create self-replicating molecules that you then guide with artificial speed into bacteria. Create the life, already, then worry about finding the mechanism that was in place on the primordial Earth.
Oh, wait. Even with everything we know about biochemistry, and the ability to create the perfectly optimized lab conditions we still can't create spontaneously forming complex organic, self-replicating, information carrying moleules. So instead, we'll get grant money for red herring experiments where we'll cook methane in a clay matrix to make hydrocarbon chains and ignore all the organic chemistry professors that look at us and say: Well, duh, what did you expect?
Have you not seen the beauty of lichen covered tundra?
I'm done for the night.
If fitness is correlated with survival and reproduction, then how can it not apply to individuals. It seems to me, this would be it's primary concern.
Ants and bees seem to do quite well with over 99% of the individuals being sterile.
Your analogy might have some bearing on the conversation if it was also the case that in human populations, one percent gave birth to the other ninety nine.
Individual homosexuals may not have their genes passed on but that has no more bearing on human evolution than the failure of many heterosexuals to bear children.
Well, I obviously disagree.
I explained the stumbling block idea in post 155. It's a reference to Origen.
IOW, we're mice in a maze. Thanks for clearing that up.
I don't explain homosexuality. I've seen attempts to explain homosexuality through evolutionary mechanisms, but since nobody has shown with any certainty what exactly homosexuality is, I think it's really just conjecture. Maybe someday soon we'll know. But there are lots of cases where people don't pass on their genes -- suicides, for instance. And yet selection is still at work.
I've always had more trouble when I lived in an area with a high clay content. The soil gets packed so hard when it gets a little dry, it's almost impossible to cultivate and weed. You almost need a sledge hammer to break it up.
Dang! I knew the muslims were trying to take over Europe and it looks like Europe gets assimilated.
Party pooper!
It actually seems that there is some pretty advanced writing styles in the Bible. While it was written many years ago, it does not fit with what I would expect to read if the authors were that primitive or uneducated.
So the fossil record shows that mammals appeared before birds, if I read that correctly?
What are mammal-like reptiles? IOW, How is a reptile mammal-like?
Did mammals and dinosaurs evolve from a common ancestor or are mammals considered a branch off of dinosaurs and where do birds fit in? Because of their egg laying, I would presume that it's thought that they decended from reptiles, correct? I've seen a diagram called the web of life or tree of life on other threads but couldn't find anything useful when I tried googling it. There's just way too much info out there and I wasn't sure where to start.
This is way past my expertise--my studies were all on the more recent end of things. I did a quick google and picked out the highlights to answer the questions, but did not verify the information.
And one of the things I found has already been corrected, so there you go.
There should be some websites out there that will give you what you need. As a start try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal.
If you need more, just ask and someone should be able to help.
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.