evolution or creation? lets talk... (page 39)

stevenyc

When Seeing is Believing:

Some people say that there has never been an 'observed' speciation. That is, within our time, a species has evolved into a completely separate species of plant or animal.

But, here's the shock...THERE HAS!

It's the Tragopogons. Tragopogon you ask, what's that. Well, that or they are the plants that after flowering turn into those puffy white seed-let plumes that you blow into the wind releasing all the seeds carried by their own little parachutes. In Washington two NEW species evolved about 50 years ago. They did this through naturally occurring hybridization between the newly derived tetraploid species. Go back 100 years ago, and this species did not exist on the planet.

steve

LittleToe

Steve:
Sounds like terraforming, to me, from the point of view of a spectator on the surface. Sure it's in simplistic language but, given that steel hadn't been invented at the time, it seems a reasonable account for the mental frameworks that were in existance at the time. Sure it misses a load of details that we are now familiar with (like needing bugs for cross-pollination), but for the time it was reasonably advanced.

I see the later point of the sun being visible as being when the sky cleared enough to actually see heavenly bodies. It needed plants to clear it all up. Sure that's a simplistic view, but it's a simplistic account, not a scientific reference manual...

Deputy Dog

Steven

Go back 100 years ago, and this species did not exist on the planet.

You mean they hadn't been observed anywhere on the planet.

stevenyc

LT: Sure that's a simplistic view, but it's a simplistic account, not a scientific reference manual

Absolutely. I think the account of Genesis is a very intelligent account if you compare it to its peers. When I stayed with some Indians in the amazon they shared their creation account with me. They believe that all life came from one huge tree. That tree fall leaving behind a huge stump and creating the surface of the earth covered in tropical jungle. This makes perfect sense to people who's experience is only jungle. The stump, which is observable, is a tepuri.

My point is, from an Anthropological view, the account is interesting as part of the evolution (maybe the wrong word to use!) of western awareness.

steve

Big Tex

Yes we choose what we want to believe as we can`t prove either evo or cre, but some people have a problem with other people`s choice, and like to be sooo dogmatic that they try and FORCE you to believe their choice, and if you don`t, they resort to mudslinging and name calling. Bit like kid`s in the playground if you don`t want to play their games.

Well actually my point was that God's existence cannot be proven or disproven. How life literally began is something that we may never know for an absolute fact. However, as this thread hs shown, the facts are that life does indeed evolve. I will not dispute that basic point.

I'm sorry you feel picked on, but I don't see anyone forcing you to believe one way or the other. You took the opposite view from several people who asked you for facts supporting your belief. They provided you with facts that support their belief. With all due respect, you left this thread once and then came back to it. I think the frustration has been your unwillingness or inability to respond to some intelligent, albeit pointed, questions. If you cannot, then it's best to say so and I think people would have been okay with that.

As for name calling, seems both sides are doing that. Except for Little Toe. Although he did use the W word (is it still bad language if an American says "wanker"? ).

Chris

stevenyc

D Dog: You mean they hadn't been observed anywhere on the planet.

No. I mean they didn't exist on the planet. The were observed evolving.

steve

dido

AuldSoul- so how do you explain people that have one less chromosome, like `downs syndrome`. Surely if they can be born with one less, then they can be born with one more? Freak of nature.

fts- don`t try and draw me into another persons statement. I don`t go along with it anyway.

DD- haha i like your observation!

freetosee

Steve, I see the problem with the Genesis account. If anyone takes the bible literal then the account should be taken as it is written. How one can take it as literal, after reading and questioning it, is beyond me? But maybe that is the greater problem. Never mind the contradictions between Genesis 1 and 5. No matter how simple the accounts must stand true by itself.

You (and others) have tried many times to discuss and have opened ways of doing so.

Thank for being enduring, understanding and flexible in approaching an exchange to this topic.

fts

Beardo

I don`t know if there can be a creator aside from the `god` of the bible

Dido

There can be - certainly. Yahweh is but one definition of God (albeit a very distinct and well defined God) amongst many other Gods. The concept of an invisible creator God is a very old idea and is not just expressed through Semitic mythology.

The Gnostics for instance have their own unique vision of what the supreme being is and many sects down through the ages have defined Yahweh as being intrinsically link to the physical realm; the higher form of God lying above & beyond the lower form(s).

This does make sense when we see the image of God expressed through the earth that we experience, with all of the inherent flaws and problems that represent major theological absurdities when we say that God is perfect, yet created (and sustains) what many people would consider an imperfect world.

The Gnostic scriptures have been suppressed by the church for centuries, yet they do offer their own form of light IMO upon the nature of reality and what ultimately God may actually be. Very unorthodox, for sure, yet another branch of knowledge worth considering when approaching this particular subject. The universal Christian church rallied against the Gnostic sects and scrolls like Thomas were cast into the fire, although these scrolls apparently were common amongst early followers of THE WAY.

Then if we move towards the East, we see another form of God. Definitely worth considering, alongside the definition of God we find in the Bible.

I believe the truth lies amidst all of these ideas. Possibly

Deputy Dog

Steve

No. I mean they didn't exist on the plant.

How do you know they never existed? And what makes this a new species and not a new variety?

evolution or creation? lets talk...

Share this