What does that mean? It means that the idea that evolution is anathma to religion is false. Evolution makes no claims regarding the "first cause" of life. It's just a physical process. It is no more alien to religion then...fire. Or the water cycle. Or anything else. If the discovery that the Earth does not revolve around the sun didn't damage religion, I can't see why the discovery that life is a dynamic process should either.

(Of course, the Copernican turn DID damage religion, so far as religion as monolithic controller of all aspects of daily life is concerned. But I see few saying that that was a bad thing. Well, the Flat Earth people, but I'm surprised they can find their way out of bed in the morning without a roadmap and a team of Sherpas.)

I'd say more, but I have to go play StarCraft now and kill my friends for sport and profit.

Now why the hell would I do that This is just so much fun to watch.

(Besides, it keeps Sol busy, which is a good thing)

------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.

So, by that definition of Evolution, God could have created the universe in a manner exactly as stated in the Bible, but if He leaves it alone long enough, the species He created will become something else (assuming, of course, that Evolution actually works)? I've never heard of that before. It's interesting. Wouldn't contradict any religion I know of, either. Too bad we've been arguing about two different definitions of evolution this whole time. We might have made more progress.

"...life evolved from nonlife... ...That conclusion is borne out by other scientific findings."

Such as?

So should we start another thread on origins, or do we keep arguing that in here, too?

I would also point out that you did not refute my point on the same mutation in the reproductive system having to occur at the same time in two individuals of opposite sexes.

Tom:

We're breaking all the records, too. The thread is already two pages and fifty messages longer than any other I've seen.

What would constitute grounds for locking a thread? The debate turning into a shouting match, with me calling Sol an empty-headed animal food trough wiper, or something along those lines? : )

*runs away quickly*

ACK!

And yeah, your locking examples are OK, I guess... as long as its entertaining, insult hurling mightn't even close this place.

------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.

Tom:

OK, first, why would they have any reason to believe that such substances as would be nesecary existed in the atmosphere of Earth? Second, assuming you meant that "bottle it up" literally, where would you get a container? Third, there are many different types of amino acid required for life, some of which are only produced at the command of DNA, which could not have existed before amino acids. Fourth, either amino acid or DNA can not exist in the presence of oxygen, I don't remember which. That would mean that there would have to have been no oxygen in the atmosphere. But if there was no oxygen, there would be no o-zone, and thus the life would be fried as soon as it was created.

And a single cell is a lot more than DNA, protiens, and carbs just mixed up. First, the DNA would have to contain all the information for metabolism and reproduction by random chance, and the probability of that would be along the lines of ten monkeys at ten typewriters typing the entire "Foundation" series, each with one book each. Second, you'd still have to figure out some way that the substances could organize themselves into JUST the right arangement. If it was that simple, scientists would be doing it all the time.

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw. The picture was of a scientist working with several test-tubes in a complex arrangement, saying "Just think: once I create life in this test-tube, I'll disproove that rediculous notion that intelligence was ever needed to do it in the first place!" : )

John Linnell, "Montana"

I find that quotation fitting. Actually, I just downloaded an MP3 of my absolute new favorite State Song, and have listened to it for...well, a long time.

Evolution DOES work. I wouldn't be arguing if it didn't. Species seperate into new species. The dialectic marches on. Observable.

"Too bad we've been arguing about two different definitions of evolution this whole time. We might have made more progress."

Excuse me for a moment. I need to scream and bother the neighbors.

Better. Now then, this simple little fact is something I've been trying to argue for, well, six pages now. Creationist arguments almost always use a "strawman" version of evolution. That is, it's essentially their own creation, stocked with lots of disagreeable things. Now, that doesn't mean these things aren't true. But it isn't at the heart of the issue.

"I would also point out that you did not refute my point on the same mutation in the reproductive system having to occur at the same time in two individuals of opposite sexes."

That's because I have no idea where it comes from. I assume you're familiar enough with genetics to understand the concept of recessive genes. Let's talk two parents, call them AA and Aa. Now, the a is the recessive gene for, oh, slighty more melanin, m'kay? These sorts of things creep into the genetic code all the time, because DNA cannot copy itself perfectly. So AA and Aa have a few kids, namely AA(2) and Aa(2). Aa(2) goes off and lives in the hills. While there, he meets a nice girl named Aa(3). Aa(3) is actually a distant relative of Aa(2). I don't know how, maybe a distaff cousin seven times removed. What have you. The two Aa's get together and have kids, namely a few more Aa's, an AA, AND...aa. The first child with slightly more melanin. And aa finds that this tiny advantage lets him go to warmer places.

Where's the problem? Genes propagate throughout populations, especially isolated populations (where a lot of evolution occurs), at a surprisingly rapid rate. Why? Well, because most things like sex. A lot. With lots of different things. Combining lots of different genes. Etc etc etc, badda bing, we've got intelligent reptile men.

"OK, first, why would they have any reason to believe that such substances as would be nesecary existed in the atmosphere of Earth?"

Because such conditions are found throughout the universe, and there is no reason to think the Earth is any different.

"Second, assuming you meant that 'bottle it up' literally, where would you get a container?"

A puddle would do nicely. Or, in the larger scope of things, how about a great big floating rock?

"Third, there are many different types of amino acid required for life, some of which are only produced at the command of DNA, which could not have existed before amino acids."

Modern life, and modern DNA. However, we aren't even talking about life as we know it, or even DNA. Just self-replicating molecules, which are "alive" perhaps in the sense that a virus is.

"Fourth, either amino acid or DNA can not exist in the presence of oxygen, I don't remember which. That would mean that there would have to have been no oxygen in the atmosphere."

Exactly. Oxygen doesn't like to be free. Luckily, oxygen is entirely unnecessary for life, especially exceedingly primitive and simple life. In fact, assuming that the deep samples we keep bringing up are representative of the planet as a whole, MOST life on Earth doesn't require oxygen.

"But if there was no oxygen, there would be no o-zone, and thus the life would be fried as soon as it was created."

Nope, no ozone at all. Curiously enough, most such lifeforms that I just mentioned can survive amazing amounts of radiation. How much? They put some bacteria into a radiation chamber and, well, fried it. The equivalent to spending millions of years out in space unprotected. The radiation tore the bacteria's genes all to hell. And you know what? The little buggers stitched their genes back together! They were absolutely fine, having survived where literally nothing should.

Also, this brings up an interesting side point. If we ever discover a planet with free oxygen in its atmosphere, odds are we'll have found life. Because there are only a few processes that produce free oxygen, and they're all rather rare. But life...well, life loves doing it, and keeps doing it, and thrives in the process.

And now, I've been waiting for this...the infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters argument. This goes back to the first point of my post, a misunderstanding of the processes which drive evolution. Evolution does not work by random chance. If it did, it wouldn't be science. Evolution does not randomly select genes. What it does do is keep what works and throws out what doesn't.

Let's say you want to type "tobeornottobe". If you do it randomly, it will take 26^13 trials. If, however, you do it as evolution works, by keeping the right letters and tossing out the bad ones, it takes only about 335 trials. (As demonstrated by a computer program written by Richard Hardison in 1988.) Since, by definiton, natural selection weeds out choices that don't work, sheer randomness is not a good complaint.

I once went by "Board Chaplain" here.

There are maybe 15 Christians on this board.

All of us (15) don't even agree on this subject.

I tried to minister to all these people, I still do a bit. When I am not supported on anything I turn to God and trust in His plan. Don't get hot over this, and don't let it bother you. Last time I checked my school did not offer a class on Internet Ministry!

------------------
It's all about the Pentiums, Baby!
"I'm down with Bill Gates, I call him Money for short
I phone him up at home and I make him do my tech support"

note: SOME people. not all.

My school offers whatever classes I want. I homeschool. : )

"Alone, awesome, complete within herself, the Goddess, She whose name cannot be spoken, floated in the abyss of the outer darkness, before the beginning of all things. And as She looked into the curved mirror of black space, She saw by her own light her radiant reflection, and fell in love with it. She drew it forth by the power that was in Her and made love to Herself, and called Her "Miria, the Wonderful."
Their ecstasy burst forth in the single song of all that is, was, or ever shall be, and with the song came motion, waves that poured outward and became all the spheres and circles of the worlds. The Goddess became filled with love, swollen with love, and She gave birth to a rain of bright spirits that filled the worlds and became beings.
But in that great movement, Miria was swept away, and as She mobed out from the Goddess She became more masculine. First She became the Blue God, the gentle, laughing God of love. Then She became the Green One, vine-covered, rooted in the earth, the spirit of all growing things. At last She became the Horned God, the Hunter whose face is the ruddy sun and yet dark as Death. But always desire draws Him back to the Goddess, so that He circles Her eternally, seeking to return in love.
All began in love; all seeks to return in love, Love is the law, the teacher of wisdom, and the great revealer of mysteries."