Science a GoGo's Home Page
Posted By: Bill Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/15/12 11:39 PM
This is for Paul in response his apparent attacks on my post about the neat experiment. I said I didn't want to start a discussion of evolution, at least not in General Science, so I am bringing it over here.

Originally Posted By: Paul
24 years !
I thought that evolution required millions of years.

now it only requires 24 years !

what does that say about evolution?


Well, it says that a lot of people thought wrong. Keep in mind that bacteria live a lot faster than large animals. So that the evolution of the ability to metabolize citrates occurred after 30,000 generations. If you count the number of generations since the start of the evolution of man from his split with the rest of the apes, about 7 million years ago, then we are talking about 350,000 generations. There were a lot of evolutionary changes in those years, so one major mutation (actually it took 2) in 30,000 generations isn't too fast.

Bill Gill
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/15/12 11:51 PM
citrates = citric acid !



we eat citric acid all the time , the bacteria in our stomachs
digest citric acids all the time.

whats so special about a bacteria that eats citrates?

Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 12:00 AM
Quote:
so one major mutation (actually it took 2) in 30,000 generations isn't too fast.


so why aren't there any bacteria that have evolved into a
larger species?

why don't we have neighbors that are bacteria's.

if they keep doing the experiment are they expected to use tools before long , maybe they need to make the room colder and give them some wood and matches.

I am sorry bill but I have a comical view of this
I suppose I should not ask question's when the topic is about
evolution.






Posted By: Bill S. Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 12:02 AM
Quote:
whats so special about a bacteria that eats citrates?


Probably not a lot, unless that particular genus has not been able to do so in the past.

possibly your next question would be "how do we know that genus has not done so before?"

I think the answer to that would have to be that we don't, which is one of the reasons for studies like this.

BTW, "bacteria" is plural.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 12:11 AM
Quote:
possibly your next question would be "how do we know that genus has not done so before?"


that is actually a very good point.

what if that genus is only found in the gut of an animal
that never eats foods that contain citric acids or citrates?

and now in the experiment the bacteria are exposed to
citrate's.

it appears that the the Bc251 strain is a
phage lambda sensitive derivative that was "made" by transducing the malB from the K-12 strain W3110.3-5

http://books.google.com/books?id=gG45ab2...251&f=false

so the strain was manufactured !
it was not a naturally occurring bacteria.










Posted By: Bill S. Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 12:40 AM
Quote:
what if that genus is only found in the gut of an animal
that never eats foods that contain citric acids or citrates?


Again, this is something that should be covered in the full account of the experiment. I've not managed to explore that yet, Have you?

Possibly we should do that before attempting further discussion of the experiment.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 12:47 AM
Quote:
Again, this is something that should be covered in the full account of the experiment. I've not managed to explore that yet, Have you?

Possibly we should do that before attempting further discussion of the experiment.


I've read whats on wiki already , and I have found something
very interesting about the original bacteria used in the experiment.

I found that pretty quick , and I'm wondering if the bacteria
used should have been advertised as never metabolizing citrates before , given that the bacteria was made in a laboratory.

peer review?

this isn't proof of anything but making a bacteria strain
in a laboratory then testing it for 24 years , then
claiming that it never had metabolized citrates before
might be considered slightly underhanded.





Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 01:04 AM
Paul, it just occurred to me that you asked another question about the experiment that I failed to answer. You asked if this was proof of evolution or another demonstration. It isn't proof. There is no further need for proof of evolution because it has been so thoroughly demonstrated that we don't need more proof. So it is one more demonstration of evolution in action.

Bill Gill
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 01:11 AM
Quote:
So it is one more demonstration of evolution in action.


so this proof or demonstration , kind of says that the other proof wasn't proof.

in fact it pretty much say's that if we change bacteria around
we might make a strain of bacteria that will metabolize citrates.

we might make a strain.

it doesn't say that a strain evolved.


Posted By: Bill S. Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 01:44 AM
Originally Posted By: Paul
we might make a strain.


Which brings us back to creation - which is certainly not denied by all those who are prepared accept that evolution might have something of value to say.
Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 02:46 AM
Originally Posted By: Paul
given that the bacteria was made in a laboratory.

Yep, and Man-of-War (a famous race horse) was made in a stable using the same techniques. It is called selective breeding. It works wonderfully for developing strains of life forms that have very well documented characteristics. That way you know where they started off and can easily determine what changes are taking place.

Originally Posted By: Paul
this isn't proof of anything but making a bacteria strain
in a laboratory then testing it for 24 years , then
claiming that it never had metabolized citrates before
might be considered slightly underhanded.

Well, it only did it in one of 12 strains, and it took 30,000 generations before it started doing it. That doesn't seem too underhanded. In fact it seems like a really good test. It came up with something unexpected, but which matched the theory of evolution extremely well.

Bill Gill
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 04:22 AM
Quote:
It is called selective breeding.


I agree , the horse selected his mate.

even though there was only one to select from.

I don't think that bacteria do any selecting , so like
the horse the selection was made for it.

it was denied everything except what it was provided.

nothing relating to natural selection or evolution involved.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 04:24 AM
Quote:
Which brings us back to creation
Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 03:04 PM
And so gentle readers once again we see that the creationists refuse to accept experiment as a valid way to learn about how the world works. They require that all science conform to their idea that the world, including all life, was created all in one fell swoop around 6000 years ago. When somebody inconveniently points out that there are many facts that cannot possibly be brought in to alignment with their beliefs they then start finding fault with studies/experiments that show them to be wrong. They do this by picking on things that have already been taken care of in the design of the experiment and are totally not germane to the subject.

This exchange with Paul is not anything new. He is using the same tactics that creationists use continually. They deny facts that can be easily seen to be true, they bring up things that have nothing to do with the facts, in many cases they promulgate out and out lies about the horrid scientific method. And so it goes apparently forever.

I do have hope that someday there will be found a way to educate all the people enough that they will quit being taken in by the creationists, but I don't expect it to happen very soon.

Bill Gill
Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 06:11 PM
Ok, just to be fair I will provide a couple of links.

This one is to a Creationism site. It supplies what purports to be evidence for creationism.

All about Creation

This one is to a site that supports evolution from Berkeley. This particular link is to the evidence for evolution page.

What is the evidence for evolution?

If you will just make a quick check of the 2 links and open your mind just a little bit you will probably realize that there really is no evidence for creationism, in contrast to the large amount of evidence for evolution.

Bill Gill
Posted By: Bill S. Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/16/12 10:09 PM
The second link is obviously going to take a bit more time to digest than the first, but a couple of comments about the first that come immediately to mind are:

1. It reads like something that was written by someone who did not believe in his/her own arguments; so might not make the strongest case.

2. It seems to assume that a belief in creation is synonymous with belief in the Genesis account of creation. This is not surprising as the most vocal defenders of creationism are usually religious fundamentalists of Judeo/Christian provenance, but it does leave some important ground uncovered.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/17/12 02:19 AM
Bill S

here is a link with a few items you might like to read.
I must caution you however , it is longer than a single paragraph.
http://scienceagainstevolution.info/topics.htm

younger fossil found above older fossil.

http://www.icr.org/articles/type/9/
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
http://www.icr.org/science/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php
http://www.chick.com/bc/1987/evolution.asp
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

thats page 1 of 22,400,000 results

using these search words "scientist against evolution"

a few from page 2

http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/science_today.htm

http://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/tag/scientists-against-evolution/























Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/17/12 02:59 AM
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

1. It reads like something that was written by someone who did not believe in his/her own arguments; so might not make the strongest case.

The problem is that all of the evidence against evolution is about at that level. I checked out one of Paul's links, pretty much at random. The in it I picked out one person who had signed some kind of statement questioning evolution.

William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City has published in the following journals.

The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation (3)
American heart journal (1)
American heart journal (1)
Circulation (1)
Circulation (1)
JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association (1)
Journal of the American College of Cardiology (1)
Lancet (1)
Texas Heart Institute journal / from the Texas Heart Institute of St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, Texas Children's Hospital (1)
The American journal of cardiology (1)

I don't see anything in that list that would make him an expert on evolution. He seems to be very much embedded in cardiac research.

By the way, almost all of Paul's links are from the same web site. He doesn't seem to have found very many web sites that don't agree with evolution.

Bill Gill
Posted By: Bill S. Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/17/12 03:16 AM
Quote:
He seems to be very much embedded in cardiac research.


Gets him to the heart of the matter. :P

Seriously, though, most of the creationist sites I have looked at produce such feeble arguments that an intelligent creationist like Paul would probably find them cringe-worthy.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/17/12 03:30 AM
Quote:
By the way, almost all of Paul's links are from the same web site. He doesn't seem to have found very many web sites that don't agree with evolution.

Bill Gill


yes there are 10 links and 8 are different web site's

I can see how you determined that , Bill.

lets see if anyone else will agree that you are right.

I will admit that 3 are of the same web site , but that
doesn't constitute "most" of the web sites being the same.

unless they have evolved into the same web sites!







Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/17/12 03:46 AM
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/allan-j.html

Quote:
James S. Allan

Creationist
Genetics
Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland
M.S. in agriculture from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
B.S. in agriculture from the University of Natal
Former senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch
International consultant in dairy cattle breeding


http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/anderson-k.html

Quote:
Kevin Anderson

Creationist

Ph.D. in Microbiology from Kansas State University

NIH Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept Microbiology, University of Illinois

Former assistant Professor of Microbiology, Mississippi State University

Research Microbiologist, USDA, Ames, Iowa

Published over 20 technical papers on genetics and molecular biology of bacteria

Director of Van Andel Creation Research Center, Chino Valley, Arizona

He has given numerous presentations at scientific meetings around the world and is currently the editor-in-chief of the Creation Research Society Quarterly.


http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/batten-d.html

Quote:
Don Batten

Creationist
Plant physiologist
Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney
B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of Sydney
Consultant plant physiologist and research scientist
New South Wales Department of Agriculture (Australia) research scientist for 18 years
Published various scientific papers
Staff member of Answers in Genesis


you can select from the dropdown yourself.

Quote:
(select person)
Agard, E. Theo
Allan, James
Anderson, Kevin
Armstrong, Harold
Arndt, Alexander
Asimov, Issac
Austin, Steven
Barnes, Thomas
Batten, Don
Baumgardner, John
Bergman, Jerry
Boudreaux, Edward
Byl, John
Catchpoole, David
Chadwick, Arthur
Chaffin, Eugene
Chittick, Donald
Cimbala, John
Clausen, Ben
Cole, Sid
Cook, Melvin
Cumming, Ken
Cuozzo, Jack
Darrall, Nancy
Darwin, Charles
Dawkins, Richard
de Beer, Gavin
Dewitt, David
DeYoung, Donald
Dobzhansky, Theodosius
Downes, Geoff
Eckel, Robert
Faulkner, Danny
Ford, Dwain
Frair, Wayne
Gentry, Robert
Giem, Paul
Gillen, Alan
Gish, Duane
Gitt, Werner
Gould, Stephen Jay
Gower, D.B.
Grebe, John
Grocott, Stephen
Haldane, J.B.S.
Harrub, Brad
Hawke, George
Hawking, Stephen
Hollowell, Kelly
Holroyd, Edmond
Hosken, Bob
Howe, George
Hoyle, Sir Fred
Humphreys, D. Russell
Huxley, Aldous
Huxley, Julian
Javor, George
Jones, Arthur
Kaufmann, David
Kennedy, Elaine
Klotz, John
Koop, C. Everett
Korochkin, Leonid
Kramer, John
Lammerts, Walter
Lester, Lane
Livingston, David
Lopez, Raul
Marcus, John
Marsh, Frank
Mastropaolo, Joseph
Mayr, Ernst
McCombs, Charles
McIntosh, Andrew
McMullen, Tom
Meyer, Angela
Meyer, John
Mitchell, Colin
Morris, Henry
Morris, John
Mumma, Stanley
Parker, Gary
Patterson, Colin
Peet, J. H. John
Rankin, John
Rosevear, David
Roth, Ariel
Rusch, Wilbert
Russell, Bertrand
Sarfati, Jonathan
Simpson, George
Snelling, Andrew
Standish, Timothy
Taylor, Stephen
Thaxton, Charles
Thompson, Bert
Thomson, Ker
Vardiman, Larry
Veith, Walter
Waddington, C.H.
Walter, Jeremy
Wanser, Keith
Whitcomb, John
White, A.J.(Monty)
Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
Wile, Jay
Williams, Emmett
Wise, Kurt
Wolfrom, Glen
Zuill, Henry


Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/17/12 02:45 PM
Well gentle readers, I think I have pointed out that the people who believe in evolution have actual science to support their view but not creationists. The big problem is that there is no real evidence to support creationism. I realize that I am not going to convert Paul or any other dedicated creationist, so I will drop this thread now. I hope that you have looked at this and realize that evolution is the only answer to how we got this way.

By the way, the United States Supreme Court agrees with me. Creationism is not science it is religion.

Bill Gill
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/17/12 10:28 PM
Quote:
Well gentle readers, I think I have pointed out that the people who believe in evolution have actual science to support their view but not creationists. The big problem is that there is no real evidence to support creationism. I realize that I am not going to convert Paul or any other dedicated creationist, so I will drop this thread now. I hope that you have looked at this and realize that evolution is the only answer to how we got this way.

By the way, the United States Supreme Court agrees with me. Creationism is not science it is religion.

Bill Gill


WOW, Bill , I never knew that !

Quote:
Creationism is not science it is religion.


why would creationism have a need to be a science anyway?
I never have claimed that creationism was a science , I have
always just claimed that evolution is not correct.

but thanks , So now all we need to do is win a case in court the next time we find evidence that evolution is false.

we don't need to try and convince anyone other than the courts
who must be non - biased and base their finding's on facts.

that's the way I see it , or we could just use some that we
already have.

so the judges are passing judgment that creationism is not
science , but are they passing judgement that evolution is science?

the last I heard evolution was still a theory , has that
been changed by the courts?

or is evolution still just a theory?

I believe that given that evolution cannot show how life first began , then evolution start's with life , and creation is the only way that life was possible , otherwise mix up whatever you want in a jar and send a bolt of lightning into it , and make some life.

if the supreme court is saying that evolution is science
then evolution need's to be capable of providing proof that
life can be created from non life in a lab , otherwise the finding's can be reversed.

in the supreme court.

it would be nice if you would post a link to the case that
you are talking about , I can't seem to find it.

thanks in advance.


if evolution is just a theory and not a fact and cannot be proven and creationism also cannot be proven to be a fact then
neither should be taught in schools , or both should be taught in schools.

and the teachers should be fired if they show any biased
opinions towards either.

they are there to teach not to influence.

let the student decide.






Posted By: Neohippy Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/17/12 10:36 PM
Originally Posted By: Bill
.

By the way, the United States Supreme Court agrees with me. Creationism is not science it is religion.

Bill Gill


Not science... yet. Until scientists find the right organic goo compounds to make their own life. Then the science of 'creationism' can begin.

And THEN begins the moral, and ethical explosions. Think it's a point of contention now? Boy, I can't wait until the lines between science and religion blur.

In the end; Can't we all just get along?

All in all, that is one helluva neat experiment. Evolution is a fascinating subject.

For the sake of argument, I don't believe in creationism, or big bang, but I do have quite a bit of faith in evolution (faith because I don't know much about it, but enough to believe it happens, and is testable as displayed here).

If god did create life, it was as a goo, just waiting for a double helix or some such to form (and it wasn't 6014 Earth years ago). Double helix can form from random particles suspended in plasma... kinda like it does in lightning strikes. God is probably just a scientist having fun, it would explain all the tangible laws. But I digress, and am probably just baiting the trolls.
Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/17/12 11:30 PM
Kitzmiller vs Dover School District

And as an aside, the judge in this case is a conservative, appointed by Bush.

Bill Gill
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/17/12 11:42 PM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

it says district court , Bill.
what we need is the Supreme Court case.


Posted By: Orac Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/18/12 02:47 AM
It's already been there and lost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

There was a pile of litigation in the 1980's when Big Bang theory rose to prominence in media.

It was actually interesting sciences response especially the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Many scientists have joined the church because if they were going to have to teach creationism then we will also have to teach there is a flying spaghetti monster.

I am proud to admit I am a card carrying member of the pastafarian church.

The court ruled that creationism in any form is not science which is the stance I uphold. As per discussions with Rev K nor is psychology or spirtualism science and it can never be made such no matter how much you try and talk around it because it fails the basic science tenants.

So in USA there is snowballs chance in hell that creationism will ever be taught as a science at school.

I know from a religious level that move will also be resisted perhaps Rev K will explain the "end of days" scenario from his church which I believe involves Catholic religion being mandated to be compolsary.
Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/18/12 02:55 AM
Originally Posted By: Paul
it says district court , Bill.
what we need is the Supreme Court case.

And the Supreme Court finding was referenced in this case. All you have to do is to check the document. It has some pretty good case law about the fact that you can't teach religion in a public school.

Bill Gill
Posted By: Orac Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/18/12 03:04 AM
Correct Bill Gill :-)

The issue is dead in USA you would have to overturn a mountain of supreme court findings.
Posted By: Bill S. Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/19/12 12:43 AM
Interesting case: The jurisprudential legal landscape throws up some points worth pondering. One thing that does seem certain is that this sort of wrangling is well established and will continue for considerable time to come.

Recently there have been signs that the same sort of thing is making its way into the UK.
Yes, it is pretty well established, and the contention will fuel many a courtroom day. I can remember in grammar school having to sit through a prayer each day before we were dismissed for lunch. It engendered some of the first discussions I had with my mother about who or what god was. I was amazed at the insensitivity of the school system to people who did not believe in prayer. The next year the policy was stopped, and we were released for lunch without a prayer, and the world did not end. Now this brouhaha over "Intelligent Design" is just a transparent attempt to reintroduce religion into the schools. Luckily we have had the good sense to rebuff it thoroughly.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/19/12 04:12 AM
my problem with teaching evolution is the fact that
it teaches children who have a belief in creation that
their belief is wrong.

this case should have found that neither is a science.

the courts found that teaching both was not necessary because
creation is not a science.

that is a fact.

all that needs to be done is to take another case to the courts
and have the teaching of evolution removed from schools.

constitutional right's were used as the tool to deny
the teaching of creation in schools , have a look at this.

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .


Quote:
The Establishment clause is immediately followed by the free exercise clause, which states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These two clauses make up what are called the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.[1]
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.


the act of the courts clearly shows that evolution is a science.

it is not a theory or a religious belief system like creation is.

it has been proven to be a fact something that creation can not prove.

I do not believe that evolution is a fact.
I do not consider any of the evidence in favor of evolution to be so strong as to prove that evolution is a fact.

I believe that evolution is a theory , a hunch , a belief system , as far as the courts are concerned evolution should be a religion.

the courts in fairness should deny teaching of evolution in
the school systems because evolution is not a science it is a belief system.

Quote:
2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.







Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/19/12 04:42 AM
Quote:
I can remember in grammar school having to sit through a prayer each day before we were dismissed for lunch.


I remember the same type of stuff , only I knew why we were doing it.

Quote:
I was amazed at the insensitivity of the school system to people who did not believe in prayer.


I am amazed at the insensitivity of the school system to people who do believe in creation.

Quote:
Now this brouhaha over "Intelligent Design" is just a transparent attempt to reintroduce religion into the schools. Luckily we have had the good sense to rebuff it thoroughly.


I feel as if "Evolution" is just a court ordered demand that introduced anti religion into the schools.

so , it boils down to what people believe in.

our school systems teach anti religion.

but they use a religion to do it.

darwin wrote a book.
moses wrote a book.

the courts chose darwin's book.






Posted By: Bill S. Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/19/12 06:35 PM
Quote:
it has been proven to be a fact something that creation can not prove.


Designating something as science certainly does not maintain that it has been proven.

Quote:
my problem with teaching evolution is the fact that
it teaches children who have a belief in creation that
their belief is wrong.


This might apply to one section of religious belief; it most certainly does not apply to all those who believe in creation.

Quote:
the courts in fairness should deny teaching of evolution in the school systems because evolution is not a science it is a belief system.


Has the court denied the teaching of creationism, or simply ruled that it should be taught as a religious belief?

Fairness would then dictate that all related religious beliefs should be given equal teaching time. Should they all be included in the science curriculum?
Posted By: Bill S. Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/19/12 06:39 PM
Quote:
darwin wrote a book.
moses wrote a book.


I think there's fairly good evidence that Darwin wrote a book.
Apart from what one might choose to believe, is there any evidence that Moses wrote one, or even that he could write?
Posted By: Mike Kremer Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/19/12 08:58 PM
Originally Posted By: Neohippy
Originally Posted By: Bill
.

By the way, the United States Supreme Court agrees with me. Creationism is not science it is religion.

Bill Gill


Not science... yet. Until scientists find the right organic goo compounds to make their own life. Then the science of 'creationism' can begin.


Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer


Mike Kremer said:-
I don't really understand the above sentence. Because...when
the scientists find the right combination of goo chemicals to replicate primitive life. Then the (science) of 'creationism' will die!
-and not live....because is is supposed to be God who started and organized creationism ???.
Is'nt that the religious basis of creationism? If not ...please explain it to me.
I thought natural Evolution starts with the right combinations of chemicals replicating life.
So...Evolution dos'not need God, does it?

Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 02:28 AM
Quote:
Then the (science) of 'creationism' will die!
-and not live....because is is supposed to be God who started and organized creationism ???.


LOL , creation is not a science as far as I'm concerned.

if you have ever bothered to read Genesis

here's is the Book of Genesis on the Vatican web site.

Quote:


http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/genesis/documents/bible_genesis_en.html

THE BOOK OF GENESIS


Chapter 1

[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
[1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
[1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
[1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
[1:6] And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
[1:7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
[1:8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
[1:9] And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
[1:10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
[1:11] Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.
[1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
[1:13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
[1:14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
[1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
[1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.
[1:17] God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,
[1:18] to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
[1:19] And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
[1:20] And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky."
[1:21] So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
[1:22] God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
[1:23] And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
[1:24] And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so.
[1:25] God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
[1:28] God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
[1:29] God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.
[1:30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
[1:31] God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.



there's one thing that people seem to forget or just never
thought about.

1 day for God could be millions / billions of our years.

after Adam and Eve sinned they were cast out of the
Garden of Eden before they could eat of the Tree Of Life
and live forever.

When God Rested.

God rested in his time frame not our's.

we may very well still be in the seventh day.






Posted By: Bill S. Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 03:24 AM
Quote:
1 day for God could be millions / billions of our years.


True, if you are willing to accept wild speculation. On the other hand if you accept Genesis literally, such speculation is not encouraged by verses 3 - 5.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 04:24 AM
Quote:
[1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
[1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.


God must have caused the earth to spin to separate the
light from the darkness.

Quote:
On the other hand if you accept Genesis literally, such speculation is not encouraged by verses 3 - 5.


I'm not sure why you think that.

it basically says that the first day was created
in the first day that God applied the work he applied to make
the first day.

then a few days latter we see this.

on the 4th day.

Quote:
[1:14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
[1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
[1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.
[1:17] God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,
[1:18] to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
[1:19] And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.


we know that the earth is older than the moon , but how did Moses know that?




Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 02:36 PM
Ah, then the story in Genesis is allegorical rather than true. That is it just represents the true story with a nice lie. So that means that none of it is just as written. So God had plenty of time to build the universe the physical way. That is he started with a void i.e. nothing, and created everything from it via the big bang. Then when there had been time in our way of counting time he kicked off evolution to bring us life as we know it. So you do believe in evolution after all.

Bill Gill
Posted By: Neohippy Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 04:16 PM
Originally Posted By: paul
[quote]
[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."





'Our' image? I never noticed that one before. Does god ever decree it's the only god? Or one among many?

C'mon Norse and Greek god battle royale! It'd be like Avengers versus Justice League. Like Terry Cruz versus Dwayne Johnson!

I'd pay money for that.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 05:31 PM
Moses , wrote Genesis.

I'm going to say that if Moses would have been inspired to
fully describe everything that occurred during the first 6
Days then the Book of Genesis would be as large as all the books
in the national archive rolled up into one.

because in order for anyone to understand the Book they would first
need to understand all knowledge , we don't even understand all
knowledge today.

So the First 6 Days in Genesis is a summary of the work that
God did in the 6 Days.

Quote:
That is it just represents the true story with a nice lie. So that means that none of it is just as written.


a lie?

I suppose that you are trying to say that the summary is deceiving.

I don't see it that way , I think that Moses did a very good job
of summarizing the First 6 Day's.

he begins with what God made

Quote:
[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,


Quote:
[1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.


there was darkness everywhere else in the deep ( the void )

this is when God filled the void which we call the universe.
a wind from God. ( the power emanating from God )
then he brought the power together to form Light.

Quote:
[1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.


God Filled the void with Light.
you call it the big bang , God called it Light.
it filled the void.

now the heavens have been created and the earth has been created.

through His Work.

the surface of the earth was covered with water.

this is because the earth was very hot.

as the earth cooled most of the water soaked into the earth causing the dry land to appear.

Quote:
[1:6] And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
[1:7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
[1:8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
[1:9] And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
[1:10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.


this Day is not yet complete as God then say's

Quote:
[1:11] Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.
[1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
[1:13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.


you call this evolution , it clearly states

Quote:
Let the earth put forth


This means that when God Created he gave the Earth the ability
to put fourth LIFE.

you say it is evolution , and evolution claims that creation
is impossible , but what you call evolution was Creation.

Quote:
That is he started with a void i.e. nothing, and created everything from it via the big bang. Then when there had been time in our way of counting time he kicked off evolution to bring us life as we know it.


I suppose I could agree with most of that.

Quote:
So you do believe in evolution after all.


I don't believe in evolution , I believe in Creation , as it is summarized in Genesis.

what you call evolution is Creation.


Posted By: Neohippy Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 06:03 PM
Originally Posted By: paul

I don't believe in evolution , I believe in Creation , as it is summarized in Genesis.

what you call evolution is Creation.




Ok... Math time.

Evolution = Creationism.

Evolution(Not believing in it) = Creationism(Not believing in it)
So, 1=1!

So you don't believe in anything? Agnostic? By your logic, you either believe in both (which is contradictory) or you believe in neither, denouncing your god, and science, in one broad word twisting swipe.

Yes, this is a troll post, but still, the contradictions were too much to resist.

I think evolution is correct. But I don't believe in creationism or big bang. Everyone to their own I guess.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 06:18 PM
Quote:
'Our' image? I never noticed that one before. Does god ever decree it's the only god? Or one among many?



I'm going to guess that God was speaking with his family.

Originally Posted By: Genesis
[6:1] When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them,
[6:2] the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose.
[6:3] Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years."


Quote:
C'mon Norse and Greek god battle royale! It'd be like Avengers versus Justice League. Like Terry Cruz versus Dwayne Johnson!


Originally Posted By: Genesis
[6:4] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.
Posted By: Neohippy Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 06:45 PM
Originally Posted By: paul


Originally Posted By: Genesis
[6:4] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.


Yeah, this was all covered in Diablo 3 by blizzard entertainment.

They have a very compelling way of delivering biblical based fantasy. Same old stories, told in such a way as to appeal to the modern masses. One could say... the stories 'evolved' to be more palatable than a 200 year old notion of 'the greatest story ever told'.
Old testament, that's where it's at. Violence, gore, sex, corruption, vengeance, wrath of god... I'd watch that movie.

Coming July 2013... One man... a world of heathens... He must bring the word of his god, or all is lost.

Jason Statham is:

MOSES!

Rated R for gratuitous mass slaughter of humans by an imaginary sky friend.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 06:46 PM
Quote:
I don't believe in evolution , I believe in Creation , as it is summarized in Genesis.

what you call evolution is Creation.


Quote:
So you don't believe in anything? Agnostic? By your logic, you either believe in both (which is contradictory) or you believe in neither, denouncing your god, and science, in one broad word twisting swipe.


instead of telling me what I believe , you should say that you think
or believe that I think or believe the way that you think or
believe that I think or believe.


I believe in Creation , evolution deny's Creation
which removes evolution's foundation , evolution has no solid ground to stand on without Creation.

the words Creation and evolution stand for 2 separate processes.

Creation includes both processes as clearly stated in Genesis.

evolution on the other hand deny's creation
which does not allow for its being.

so it is not.

evolution is like the top floor of a skyscraper claiming it
does not require all the floor's underneath it that support it.

needless to say that arrogant self supporting floor on top
will come crashing down.

unless it get's some support.



Posted By: Neohippy Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 07:07 PM
Evolution does not deny creationism. It denies genesis as it is written. Maybe if genesis was written:

And god created bio goo, and it was good.
The bio goo then took one god day to form as it would, creating life as it would come to know itself. And it was ok... until the nutters came about.
Then god was sad, 'cause it realized man was kinda dumb.
And on the seventh god day, god rested, because he was sick and tired of man bitching and complaining that other men did not believe the same things.
Then some dude wrote this book, and god threw up it's mighty arms and said: "F*#$ it. You're on your own."
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 07:10 PM
But you only have 1 more day !

this is December the Twentieth , tomorrow is the Twenty First.

hopefully we will be given more time to watch the movie , or is
it a game?

either way , I will either watch it , or play it , to see what's
in it.

so it's a movie.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/steven-spielberg-moses-movie-gods-and-kings-warner-bros/

sounds good.

thank's

might I also add , it's about time.

here's the older version of the movie Moses.

1-23






Posted By: Neohippy Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 07:55 PM
Originally Posted By: paul
But you only have 1 more day !

this is December the Twentieth , tomorrow is the Twenty First.

hopefully we will be given more time to watch the movie






This is the 15th cycle of the Mayan calender, so I'd think we'd have time.

Plus the Julian and Gregorian calenders weren't taken into account, so I'd say the dates are a wee bit off.

It's 2012, not because of Jesus, but Julius Caesar. He eventually adopted the 4 year leap year cycle after his failed extra month every 2 year calender that he instituted in 46BC. By 1582 though, the Julian calender was 11 days off, so pope Gregory changed it up. Now there are only 97 leap years in a 400 year cycle, instead of Julius's 100 every 400 years.

Documented history is fun.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 09:14 PM
Quote:
This is the 15th cycle of the Mayan calender, so I'd think we'd have time.

Plus the Julian and Gregorian calenders weren't taken into account, so I'd say the dates are a wee bit off.

It's 2012, not because of Jesus, but Julius Caesar. He eventually adopted the 4 year leap year cycle after his failed extra month every 2 year calender that he instituted in 46BC. By 1582 though, the Julian calender was 11 days off, so pope Gregory changed it up. Now there are only 97 leap years in a 400 year cycle, instead of Julius's 100 every 400 years.

Documented history is fun.


I don't believe all that stuff.

but I will give you credit for looking it all up.

as if it meant something.

you still only have 1 day , because the media say's so.

Quote:
It's 2012, not because of Jesus, but Julius Caesar


when we write a date we use either AD or BC

in your opinion what do the two above represent?

is it after the death of caesar AD and before caesar BC?

the Jewish Calendar says this year is 5773

2012-2013





Posted By: Neohippy Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/20/12 09:47 PM
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
This is the 15th cycle of the Mayan calender, so I'd think we'd have time.

Plus the Julian and Gregorian calenders weren't taken into account, so I'd say the dates are a wee bit off.

It's 2012, not because of Jesus, but Julius Caesar. He eventually adopted the 4 year leap year cycle after his failed extra month every 2 year calender that he instituted in 46BC. By 1582 though, the Julian calender was 11 days off, so pope Gregory changed it up. Now there are only 97 leap years in a 400 year cycle, instead of Julius's 100 every 400 years.

Documented history is fun.


I don't believe all that stuff.

but I will give you credit for looking it all up.

as if it meant something.

you still only have 1 day , because the media say's so.

Quote:
It's 2012, not because of Jesus, but Julius Caesar


when we write a date we use either AD or BC

in your opinion what do the two above represent?

is it after the death of caesar AD and before caesar BC?

the Jewish Calendar says this year is 5773

2012-2013







Considering BC, and AD, were not adopted until the early 6th century, they can mean whatever you want. More common nowadays (and I always forget) is BCE and ACE.

AD does not stand for anything death related anyways. Latin. Anno domini. Year of our lord. So in 523(AD) or so, they wrote up this fantasy novel (or stole stories for it, like Horace... aka Jesus), called it the bible, and then claimed we have been counting the years since some carpenter's birth in a barn, that was undocumented, and over half a millennium prior to the dating suffix.

Julius Caesar didn't give two craps out of five craps what they called the years prior to his calendar, since he was the ruler of the known world, nobody said otherwise.

And belief has nothing to do with this one, I'm afraid. Unlike the bible, this little calendar education is backed up by actual texts (or tomes?). Even Pope Gregory recognized the Julian calender as an invention of Julius Caesar.

Sure makes a handy time to fabricate the birth of a god son though.

Or sun god... Ever hear of Horace? Look it up, you may find the tale quite familiar.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 12:16 AM
I get a kick out of the way people go out of their way to
misrepresent things such as you just did.

B.C. is an abbreviation for “Before Christ.” A.D. is an abbreviation for “anno Domini,” which is Latin for “in the year of our Lord.”
B.C. and A.D. are commonly used to count years in time. Jesus Christ’s birth is used as a starting point to count years that existed before (B.C.) and after (A.D.) He was born. For example, the year 532 B.C. refers to the time 532 years before A.D. 1, when Christ was assumed to have been born.
Dionysius Exiguus, a monk, invented the B.C./A.D. method during the Middle Ages, early in the sixth century. Commissioned by the pope, he did this to determine the correct date for Easter. His counting method determined Christ’s birth to be the year A.D. 1. However, Jesus was actually born a few years earlier, in the year 4 B.C.

Quote:
And belief has nothing to do with this one, I'm afraid.


then why is AD connected to the birth of Jesus Crist?

Quote:
So in 523(AD) or so, they wrote up this fantasy novel (or stole stories for it, like Horace... aka Jesus), called it the bible,


Moses wrote the first 5 Books of the Bible apx 1000 - 1500 years before AD.

your talking about the New Testament.

Quote:
this little calendar education is backed up by actual texts (or tomes?).


But the actual text you speak of was written long after the
Jewish Bible. ( the tora or the first 5 Books of the Bible )

they used actual text also , so what point are you attempting to make?

the New Testament wasn't written 532 years after Jesus. You may be referring to 325 AD, when the Council of Nicaea officially recognized the New Testament as having been written by God. But by then, Christians had been reading the New Testament as God's Word already for two centuries.

So when was the New Testament written?

Acts, the fifth book in the New Testament, is a methodical account of the early church written by a doctor named Luke when he was the assistant to and the note taker for the Apostle Paul.

62 AD was when Paul was martyred in Rome. 64 AD was when Emperor Nero burnt Rome and blamed the fire on Christians to launch the Roman persecution of Christians, and 70 AD was when the future Emperor Titus sacked Jerusalem; both were major milestones in the history of early Christianity.

So what?

If a historical account of New York City mentions the construction and the presence of the twin towers of the World Trade Center but ends without mentioning their destruction, that historical account predates September 11, 2001. This conclusion is warranted, isn't it?

Acts ends without mentioning the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD; this indicates that Acts predates 70 AD.

Acts also ends without mentioning the great fire in Rome and the ensuing Roman persecution of Christians across the Roman empire; this indicates that Acts also predates 64 AD.

Acts ends just after mentioning Paul's completion of his 2 year imprisonment in Rome but without mentioning his martyrdom in 62 AD. This indicates that Acts was completed in 62 AD.


Posted By: Bill S. Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 12:33 AM
Quote:
Moses wrote the first 5 Books of the Bible apx 1000 - 1500 years before AD.


How do you know that?

Is there evidence, or is it something you believe because you were told, or you read it somewhere?
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 12:43 AM
http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/ageoftorah.html
Posted By: Ellis Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 12:48 AM
Paul- I cannot understand why you find it necessary to qualify the power of God in this way.

If God told Moses(?) (or some other primitive but worthy shepherd) the Creation story why cannot it be allowed that God, being omnipotent, was able to do the whole thing in seven days. Remember he had a rest on the seventh day-- well-earned I suggest. And a day is a day-- not millions of years.

Picking out and revising the inconvenient bits should not be an option!
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 01:18 AM
Quote:
Paul- I cannot understand why you find it necessary to qualify the power of God in this way.


I could not qualify the power of God.

the reason I used a million / billion years is because we cant
quantify how long a day is for God.

although in the bible there are verses that say.

a day with God is like a thousand years.

this is expressing how long of a time period it would seem that passes were you to spend 1 of our day's with God.

in other words were you to spend 1 of our days with God , to
God that time period would seem like a tiny fraction of a millisecond.

it is not quantifying how long one of God's days are in our years.

as a reference consider your life span to these.

Mayfly 30 minute lifespan.
animals/insects/plants

http://victoryv.hubpages.com/hub/top-10-Short-life-Small-lifespan-animalsinsectsplants

bacteria

20 minutes

http://www.ehow.com/about_4614584_what-life-span-bacteria.html

if you lived for 80 years

2.1 million bacteria (20 minute version) would have lived and died back to back during your life span.



Posted By: Bill S. Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 01:57 AM
Paul, that's not proof, or even evidence; it's statements of belief. That's without such statements as:

"I think there is little question that 1,800 years ago the Torah already existed........... So the Torah is certainly already in existence for about 1,800 years."
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 02:10 AM
Quote:
Paul, that's not proof, or even evidence; it's statements of belief.


it's not statements of belief , its shown in history.

the evidence is found in history.

the proof is shown from the evidence found in history.

at which year in time do you consider a historical document
or any document invalid?

do you believe that the mayan calendar is apx 4000 - 5000 years old , if so why?

do you believe that gobekli tepe is apx 12,000 years old?

if so why?

is it because you don't attach a religion to them?

are your belief's based on if a document is a religious document or not.

what types of documents did people write back then , when
they did write on things?









Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 02:56 AM
Originally Posted By: Neohippy
Considering BC, and AD, were not adopted until the early 6th century, they can mean whatever you want. More common nowadays (and I always forget) is BCE and ACE.

Actually that is CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before the Common Era). Minor correction, but we might as well get it right. It avoids confusion down the line.

And of course CE and BCE dates are the same as the older AD and BC dates. The change was made in the interests of keeping religion out of science.

Bill Gill
Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 03:17 AM
Originally Posted By: NeoHippy

Plus the Julian and Gregorian calenders weren't taken into account, so I'd say the dates are a wee bit off.

But that will give the doomsayers a great chance to explain why it didn't happen. Then they can "correct" their observations and call it again.

Bill Gill
Posted By: Orac Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 04:53 AM
I am not even into religion and I have a much more basic problem the Torah is not the bible a FACT that Paul must know.

Remember I have had alot of Jewish and Muslim interaction over my life and if you start calling the Bible the Torah you will start a war and for once not from me :-)
Posted By: KirbyGillis Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 05:27 AM
Originally Posted By: Neohippy
For the sake of argument, I don't believe in creationism, or big bang...


Hi Neo. Pleased to meet you and welcome aboard.

I can't help being very curious about any alternatives to the Big Bang. Could you "expand" on that a little bit?

Perhaps you could start a new science based thread if you think it's appropriate.

Thanks,
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 05:36 AM
We were just discussing Genesis and who wrote Genesis.

however the Tora consist of the first 5 Books of the Bible
written by Moses.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Posted By: Orac Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 05:52 AM
Again you would start a war stating that.

The bible contains 5 chapters of a heavily translated version of what the Torah in the Tanakh says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh).

Ask someone of Jewish faith to tell you the story of Noah.

Ask someone of the Islamic faith to tell you the story of Noah.

Perhaps do some reading on its background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah


To illustrate the problem in your link http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/ageoftorah.html

Quote:

Moses wrote the Torah according to the instructions given him by Hashem. Hashem dictated the Torah to Moses, letter by letter. Moses then taught it to the Children of Israel. And we have studied the Torah ever since, for 3,313 or so years.

Of course, the Torah itself is much older than that. Our Tradition tells us that Hashem created the Torah, both the Written and the Oral, 2,000 years before He created the universe. Hashem used it as a blueprint when He created the universe. And Hashem then kept it until it was time for us to receive it.


I know you are not Jewish so I suspect you are going to have some problems with your own link ... so who wrote Genesis and who's word is it?

See the problem to Jewish, genesis is NOT the literal WORD OF GOD and it is a interpretive work where you fundementalists turn genesis into a literal word of god translation. How the Torah chapters sudenly becomes the literal WORD OF GOD is lost on me I have found no christian ever able to explain that one.

To a Jew you christians take part of there religous books change the author and history and claim it as the basis of your faith and god and thus wars start :-)

As an aside as a non religious person it amazes me that 3 religions that have origins around the same stories in Jewish, Christians and Muslims can have such trouble with each other.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 12:46 PM
Quote:
The bible contains 5 chapters of a heavily translated version of what the Torah in the Tanakh says


I suppose your refering to the 5 BOOKS that Moses wrote.
the Tora and the Tanakh are not the same.
the Tora is the first five Books of Moses.


Quote:
I know you are not Jewish so I suspect you are going to have some problems with your own link ... so who wrote Genesis and who's word is it?


Orac , the word Hashem is used on the page I linked to
because the Word God is considered too holy to use in text.

so God gave the instruction's to Moses.

Moses wrote Genesis.

God instructed Moses what he should write.

Quote:
As an aside as a non religious person it amazes me that 3 religions that have origins around the same stories in Jewish, Christians and Muslims can have such trouble with each other.


I know , its strange.

also , I think your making too big of a deal out of it saying
that this discussion would start a war.






Posted By: Orac Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 12:56 PM
[quote=paul
so God gave the instruction's to Moses.

Moses wrote Genesis.
[/quote]

Only if you are Christian that is total garbage if you are jewish.

The link you gave was Jewish thats why it is worded the way it is and it means exactly what it says hence the www.beingjewish.com :-)

It is one of the problems I am having in my studying of Christianity the origins of the bible is well shall we say problematic with no distinct link.

Jewish can trace there beliefs directly back to the Torah.
Islam can trace there beliefs directly back to the Quran.

The Quran and Torah cross reference each other the Christian bible has no direct history that I can find would you care to explain it to me? I am not picking on religions here I believe I am stating facts as per my stidying that Rev K has been encouraging me to do.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 01:05 PM


Quote:
According to religious tradition, all of the teachings found in the Torah, both written and oral, were given by God to Moses, some of them at Mount Sinai and others at the Tabernacle, and all the teachings were written down by Moses, which resulted in the Torah we have today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah
Posted By: Orac Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 01:17 PM
But it is a translation in oral and teaching form it is not intended to be taken literally.

If you doubt me ask anyone of the jewish faith.

It is why the jewish don't struggle with science in this matter they don't take it literally.

I guess what I am struggling with is you are literally interpretting writings of the jews in a way the jewish don't even take them

Google "Do the Jews believe the story of creation in Genesis is the literal truth"
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 01:55 PM
Teaching = don't take it seriously , were just kidding , really don't bother remembering this stuff its not to be taken literally.

your a teacher , is that the way you think of the things you teach?
Posted By: Orac Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 02:46 PM
I am taking it in the manner those who directly descend from the Torah say the item is to be translated nothing more nothing less.

When I write something to teach someone and tell them I mean "this" I mean "this" unless I am being sarcastic or telling a fable or proverb .... context is everything.

What I am struggling with is some Christians (I realize its not all) putting a slant on a jewish document and history and I am not trying to offend here but thats what you are doing to me.

Have you ever asked a jewish faith person to explain their meaning of genesis, Paul?
Posted By: Bill S. Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 03:16 PM
Quote:
the evidence is found in history.


You believe everything you read in history books?

Anyway, the question I raised was how you could say with such certainty that Moses wrote the first five books of the OT.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 05:29 PM
Quote:
I am taking it in the manner those who directly descend from the Torah say the item is to be translated nothing more nothing less.


in other words translated correctly , not adding to it , or subtracting from it.

Quote:
When I write something to teach someone and tell them I mean "this" I mean "this" unless I am being sarcastic or telling a fable


Moses did not state that he was telling a fable.
and you used the word proverb , I would use the word summary.
but not as if His summary was a fable.

Quote:
What I am struggling with is some Christians (I realize its not all) putting a slant on a jewish document and history and I am not trying to offend here but thats what you are doing to me.


here is a translated version of the Hebrew Bible.

there are differences between the version on the vatican web site.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0101.htm

Genesis
Chapter 1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. {P}

6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}

9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. {P}

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. {P}

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.' 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. {P}

24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food; 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. {P}


so we have two slightly different version's that for the most
part have the same meanings.

example
Hebrew , the Spirit of God hovered
Catholic , a wind from God blew
for emphasis
KJV , the Spirit of God moved

Quote:
I am not trying to offend here but thats what you are doing to me.


I'm not sure why someone such as yourself would be offended.
as you clearly have shown no respect nor regard for any of the religion's that we are discussing.


Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 06:12 PM
Quote:
Anyway, the question I raised was how you could say with such certainty that Moses wrote the first five books of the OT.


and I think I have shown that , unless you consider what I
have shown to be incorrect.

history shows that Moses wrote the first 5 Book's of the OT.
Posted By: Orac Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 07:02 PM
Originally Posted By: paul

Moses did not state that he was telling a fable.
and you used the word proverb , I would use the word summary.
but not as if His summary was a fable.


The jewish whose history and legacy this is do .. and thats the point ... fables don't start out saying this is a fable they start out "once upon a time" or "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

Lets take this to a modern American situation to show you the issue. How do you think the Native Indians would feel if I started telling them how they should read and interpret their history and folklore.

Thats the issue for me what you are doing is almost offensive and I can see why the jewish have issues with some christians.

I realise there are different versions of the text etc but you keep ignoring the issue that these are the jewish scriptures and the Torah was passed down in the jewish community.

You keep avoiding giving me a straight answer from you on how in your belief they became part of the Christian bible. It's a simple question and should not be that hard to answer, I can't see how it happens from my reading so far and there are so many versions of Christianity I can't get a standard answer.

Originally Posted By: paul

I'm not sure why someone such as yourself would be offended.
as you clearly have shown no respect nor regard for any of the religion's that we are discussing.


How do you know if I have any respect or regard? I am simply asking you questions and explaining my problems and misgivings, it is you who is creating motive.

My motive in this excercise is dead simple I am trying to work out how fundementalist Christians believe the Old Testament is a literal work because the logic escapes me at the moment how anyone could construct that belief. If you told me the Jews stole the work or something it might sort of make sense but without some explaination I can't get from a jewish book to christianity.

The Latter Day Saints for example have there sacred book which bridges gaps and I can see how the basics work. The more liberal Christian groups note they inherit the old testament from the jewish etc and they concentrate more on the new testament.
Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 08:33 PM
Since there has been considerable discussion here about who wrote Genesis I went off and did a little (a very little) research. I jumped straight into "Asimov's Guide to the Bible: The Old Testament" by Isaac Asimov. Asimov is careful to say that this is not original research on his part, it comes from his study of a great many sources. And for full disclosure Asimov is a scientist and an atheist, in addition to being a science fiction author.

Here is what he has to say about the matter.

Originally Posted By: Asimov
By ancient tradition, the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses, the folk hero who, according to the account given in the second through fifth books, rescued the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. Modern scholars are convinced that this theory of authorship is not tenable and that the early books of the Bible are not the single work of any man. Rather, they are the combined and carefully edited version of a number of sources. Despite this, the full name of the first book of the Bible as commonly given in English translation remains "The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis."
The first five books of the Bible give not only the traditional history of the ancestors of the Israelite people, but also describe a legal code as having been given to Moses by Cod and by Moses to the Israelites generally. Because of Moses' traditional role in what was, in actual fact, a set of laws that developed slowly over the centuries, the whole is termed the "Mosaic law" or, more simply still, "the Law." The Hebrew word for the first five books is "Torah," which is the Hebrew word for "law."


Bill Gill
Posted By: Neohippy Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 09:07 PM
Originally Posted By: paul


Quote:
And belief has nothing to do with this one, I'm afraid.


then why is AD connected to the birth of Jesus Crist?

Quote:
So in 523(AD) or so, they wrote up this fantasy novel (or stole stories for it, like Horace... aka Jesus), called it the bible,


Moses wrote the first 5 Books of the Bible apx 1000 - 1500 years before AD.

your talking about the New Testament.




Belief has nothing to do with the calendar. AD and BC were added half a millennium later, because of people like you. The desire, nay, the NEED to substantiate a belief regardless of the facts.
"I know! Let's say Christ was born at year zero! If any of the unwashed masses disagree, burn them as heathens! God will love it!"
How is it that Jesus wasn't written about for that long, but they somehow KNOW what happened? Especially when these are times when most of the population can't read, let alone record events that are not yet considered of any importance?
Maybe, perhaps... stories, and songs? That may, just maybe, have been embellished by some bards looking to get a warm bed and hot food in exchange for an entertaining story?

And you say Moses wrote the books in 1500 BC? That's great, except, it was not dictated by god. It was a compilation of oral history. Songs, poems, et cetera. And those are totally reliable. Kinda like how some crazy 'mericans leave out 'gay', and 'pipe' in some Christmas songs now. Does that mean we take the current versions of these songs as gospel? Well, no, but that's because we are logical, intelligent people... Well... Some.

So what happened to the writings before 1500BC? Greek, Babylonian?

For the record, the new testament took 300 years to write, plenty of room for 'interpretation'. The old testament was a compilation of well loved folk lore spanning 1000 years.

Also, you spelled the name of your lord and saviour wrong, he's gonna be pissed.

And so you know... Today is the first day of the 3 day death of the sun god. He will be resurrected, indicating the coming of spring. Funny how the birth of C'h'rist, coincides with the solstice, and the sun remaining level for 3 days, then 'rising' again? But that's all coincidence... not a rehashing of old tales at all.

But I say all this, only because I have not limited my life to studying only one book or religion, but many. As you should too.I don't know it all, but hot damn, I do love learning as much as I can.
Posted By: Neohippy Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 09:21 PM
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Anyway, the question I raised was how you could say with such certainty that Moses wrote the first five books of the OT.


and I think I have shown that , unless you consider what I
have shown to be incorrect.

history shows that Moses wrote the first 5 Book's of the OT.



According to you though, history started 6000ish years ago, and that is easily proven false with... wait for it...

SCIENCE!

But you don't believe in that either so... Yeah. Troll post again I guess. Jeebus Cripes Paul, I do say, you seem to bring out the worst in me. I like you, you give me a desire to learn so I don't end up like... Bah! I won't do it. I won't bite, again... maybe.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 11:31 PM
Thanks Bill

Quote:
By ancient tradition, the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses,


or thanks Isaac Asimov since that is who you have trusted
to give you the answer to Bill S's question.

as for Orac and NoeHippy , I have said many times that I
didn't want to discuss religion on a science discussion forum ,
it is the non believers that seem to want to discuss religion.

so if you would like to discuss between yourselves have at it
I'm not wasting any more time on it because its a non issue
here on a science forum.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/21/12 11:35 PM
Quote:
I do say, you seem to bring out the worst in me.


needless to say , if you and orac were in front of me right now
I would find out just how bad that would really be.

right?
Posted By: Orac Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/22/12 01:52 AM
And all I was trying to do is understand your religion and beliefs?

I understand the history of islamic beliefs, I understand the history of jewish beliefs, I understand the history of Latter Day Saints, I understand some history of some Christian groups beliefs and I was simply trying to add understanding of history of your beliefs.

I am not sure why I cause you issues but if you don't want to discuss your beliefs it's not a problem, don't.

I should add you started the discussion and brought religion into the discussion so stop blaming us

Originally Posted By: paul


LOL , creation is not a science as far as I'm concerned.

if you have ever bothered to read Genesis

here's is the Book of Genesis on the Vatican web site.

.... long religious spam



If you don't want to discuss religion don't bring it into the discussion and we won't either, I am happy to respect each other.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/22/12 05:34 PM
Quote:
I should add you started the discussion and brought religion into the discussion so stop blaming us


this thread was started by Bill Gill and moved from a thread that is in the general science forum.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=46789#Post46789

I did not break religion in the discussion.
I was asking questions and making some pretty good points about the proposed evolution proof that has been attached to the experiment.

I showed that the bacteria involved was manufactured in a lab
and that the bacteria did not naturally acquire the ability to metabolize citrates as in natural selection.


Quote:
If you don't want to discuss religion don't bring it into the discussion and we won't either, I am happy to respect each other.


I didn't , the first mention of Creation in the thread was made by one of the "we" you attach yourself to and that was in the original thread in the general science forum.

Bill s

Quote:
Could this quote from this week's "UK Safari" say anything relevant to the creation/evolution debate?

"Red-eared Terrapins were brought over here from United States for the pet trade. Remember the Mutant Ninja Turtle craze? When their owners found out how big they got, and how difficult they were to keep, many of those pet terrapins were let loose in ponds and lakes up and down the U.K.

They manage to survive our cold winters by sleeping at the bottom of ponds, and taking in oxygen by passing water over special membranes in the throat. It's thought that special sacs in the cloaca (rectal area) can also absorb oxygen!

It's incredible to think that while some humans are able to talk through their backsides these reptiles have actually evolved a method of breathing through them. Which begs the question, if a vet needed to resuscitate a pet terrapin with breathing difficulties... which end should get the kiss of life?"

No drawing comparisons with SAGG posters, please!!!


then the discussion was moved by Bill Gill's request to the NQS forum , in true scientific form , along with any other evidence that might offend evolution , this is a scientist way of controlling / protecting evidence that might detract from his belief system.

in the new thread the first mention of Creation was first mentioned by Bill s again.

Quote:
Which brings us back to creation - which is certainly not denied by all those who are prepared accept that evolution might have something of value to say.


the very next mention was made by Bill Gill.

Quote:
And so gentle readers once again we see that the creationists refuse to accept experiment


the first time that I mentioned Creation was on the second
page of the second thread , where I said.

Quote:
why would creationism have a need to be a science anyway?
I never have claimed that creationism was a science , I have
always just claimed that evolution is not correct.


as usual , and in true scientific form your two comments are found
to be misleading and incorrect.

Quote:
Quote:
I should add you started the discussion and brought religion into the discussion so stop blaming us


Quote:
If you don't want to discuss religion don't bring it into the discussion and we won't either, I am happy to respect each other.


I was only trying to make some sense out of the experiment , it
was the "us" and "we" who vectored the discussion towards
Creation.

as I said earlier.

Quote:
I have said many times that I
didn't want to discuss religion on a science discussion forum ,
it is the non believers that seem to want to discuss religion.


I only wanted to discuss evolution , but I suppose that
evolution is only to be discussed between evolutionist.

this way the "us" and "we" can pat each other on the back and
prove themselves to be correct to themselves.





Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/22/12 06:05 PM
Originally Posted By: Paul

I only wanted to discuss evolution , but I suppose that
evolution is only to be discussed between evolutionist.

But Paul, your discussion of evolution seems to be a flat denial. You don't offer any alternate explanation of the facts that are explained by evolution, except creationism or something of the sort, which doesn't explain the facts. In fact the only known support for creationism is found in Genesis, which is a religious document, not a scientific document. As such this discussion was properly moved to the NQS forum.

Your "explanation" of the experiment with which I started this thread is totally invalid, which I showed. You claim the bacteria used in the experiment were created in a laboratory. Actually they were selected in a laboratory, not created. The selection allowed their characteristics to be carefully described. This allowed a very good understanding of what could be expected from them in a long term breeding experiment. The ability to metabolize citrates was totally unexpected. And it only happened in one of 12 breeding populations and only after 30,000 generations. Under those conditions I fail to see how you can say that the ability to metabolize citrates was already built into them. If it had been then more than one of the populations should have developed the ability long before 30,000 generations. The only viable explanation is that they evolved the ability over a lengthy period of time in terms of generations. That is just what would be expected from the theory of evolution.

And so gentle readers you see how once again how creationists refuse to accept valid observations which illustrate the operation of evolution.

Bill Gill
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/22/12 06:14 PM
Quote:
But Paul, your discussion of evolution seems to be a flat denial. You don't offer any alternate explanation of the facts that are explained by evolution, except creationism or something of the sort, which doesn't explain the facts. In fact the only known support for creationism is found in Genesis, which is a religious document, not a scientific document. As such this discussion was properly moved to the NQS forum.


I don't need to offer any alternate explanation of the
supposed truths / fact's that evolution claims.

evolution should not need Creation to be found incorrect
evolution only need's to be found correct itself.

until evolution is found to be correct it cannot be said to be correct , it remains a theory , an idea , a hunch , a thought.

you can't say that evolution is correct because Creation has no proof.

properly moved you say , improperly moved I say.

sweep it under a rug , so that it wont be seen.

Quote:
in fact the only known support for creationism is found in Genesis


I say the largest support for Creationism is in the fact that
evolution cannot be proven.

evolution needs to prove itself using evidence not documents.

by my questioning the proposed evidence that you posted and having
you move the thread to the NQS forum shows that you have little
faith or trust in evolution.





Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/22/12 06:45 PM
Quote:
Your "explanation" of the experiment with which I started this thread is totally invalid, which I showed. You claim the bacteria used in the experiment were created in a laboratory. Actually they were selected in a laboratory, not created. The selection allowed their characteristics to be carefully described. This allowed a very good understanding of what could be expected from them in a long term breeding experiment. The ability to metabolize citrates was totally unexpected. And it only happened in one of 12 breeding populations and only after 30,000 generations. Under those conditions I fail to see how you can say that the ability to metabolize citrates was already built into them. If it had been then more than one of the populations should have developed the ability long before 30,000 generations. The only viable explanation is that they evolved the ability over a lengthy period of time in terms of generations. That is just what would be expected from the theory of evolution.


mutations occur in nature , that is not evolution is is natural.
orac posted that in an image , inbreeding in humans causes mutations.

in only a few generation's of human in breeding the differences are easily seen.
continued in breeding results in deformities , large changes.

a dog will eat his own excrement if that is the only choice he has.

do you call that evolution?

the bacteria was only allowed a chosen selection to choose from.

but you call that evolution.

it was a rigged experiment to try and prove evolution , even though bacteria have metabolized citrates in the past and still do, which
can easily be proven , and it can easily be shown that this
particular breed of bacteria has ancestors that have metabolized citrates in the past.


Paul, for your information, [/i]Escherichia coli[i]does NOT utilize citrate. It is one of the distinguishing features of [/i]E. coli[i] that differentiates it from another genus, [/i]Citrobacter[i], which DOES utilize citrate. The fact that this strain of [/i]E. coli[i] acquired the ability to metabolize citrate by the accumulation of two mutations in two genes it carries is proof that bacteria can evolve, given selective factors in the environment, to use chemicals for food that they were not able to utilize before. By [/i]evolving[i] in this manner, the resulting organism would probably be placed in the genus [/i]Citrobacter[i] if it were discovered in the wild. Whatever you provide as a food source, sooner or later some bacteria or fungi will evolve to utilize it. With all the agricultural chemicals we are spreading in our environment, we are providing a selection pressure, and I daresay it is possible that somewhere out there are bacteria which have evolved to be able to degrade them. Even glyphosate is broken down in the soil by bacteria eventually, and it is wholly man-made and unnatural. Given enough time, there will arise some bacteria or fungi that are able to degrade plastics. Life takes advantage of whatever resources are available to it, and [/i]evolves[i] to meet all challenges.
Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/22/12 11:36 PM
Originally Posted By: Paul
it was a rigged experiment to try and prove evolution

Paul, if it was rigged can you give us a step by step account of how it was rigged? Both Amaranth and I have pointed out that E. Coli has never been able to metabolize citrates. So there must have been some slight of hand someplace. Since you spotted it so easily you should be able to point to just the place where the rigging took place. And be sure that it is a precise thing they did, since so far you have just said it was rigged, but with no clear explanation of what they did to rig it.

By the way. Can you tell me what they got out of this? This is a very long and involved experiment. I don't see that anybody is getting enough out of it to pay for the trouble. Dr. Lenski of course has a secure place in his university, but I'm not aware that university professors are getting rich off of their research, at least not off of general research that doesn't lead to something that can be sold at a profit. In fact I think that he would get a whole lot more if he some how proved that evolution wasn't real.

Bill Gill
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 01:18 AM
Quote:
Paul, if it was rigged can you give us a step by step account of how it was rigged?


why sure , Bill

I wouldn't put it past a scientist or a student these day's to introduce a mutagen into the mix just to prove evolution because
he has a personal grievance with Creation or religion , or
because he has been paid to do so.

especially since I have encountered what I have encountered on this forum.

that's step 1

there are no other step's

this experiment might show a probable cause of evolution
but it does not prove evolution , however until it has been replicated by other scientist
and might I add scientist that are creationist
I will not believe that it is proof of evolution or a probable cause of evolution.










Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 02:52 AM
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Paul, if it was rigged can you give us a step by step account of how it was rigged?


why sure , Bill

I wouldn't put it past a scientist or a student these day's to introduce a mutagen into the mix just to prove evolution because
he has a personal grievance with Creation or religion , or
because he has been paid to do so.

especially since I have encountered what I have encountered on this forum.

that's step 1

there are no other step's

this experiment might show a probable cause of evolution
but it does not prove evolution , however until it has been replicated by other scientist
and might I add scientist that are creationist
I will not believe that it is proof of evolution or a probable cause of evolution.


Paul, that isn't a direct demonstration that the thing was rigged. It is just your idea of what could have happened based on your prejudices. You wouldn't be able to win a court case with that kind of evidence, and you certainly won't convert any body who actually looks at the evidence.

For your information, if you didn't check to see how the experiment was carried out. They didn't just observe the change. All through the experiment they took routine samples of the bacteria in the flasks and froze them, so they could check to see what happened. That was how they determined in what generations the 2 mutations that were required to allow the bacteria to metabolize citrates occurred. That makes it very difficult for somebody to mess with the experiment.

But the gentle readers we don't expect anything like logic from somebody who refuses to look at all the evidence for evolution, but still refuses to believe in it. Actually of course not looking at the evidence is important, because there is so much of it that they could not refuse to believe it.

Bill Gill
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 03:18 AM
as I have read it was like the experiment began on
monday , and on saturday a difference was noted.

after apx 22,000 generations.

and today is Sunday.

and BTW , the bacteria in question did / does have the internal ability
to process citrates.

it just never had the ability to cross the cell barrier before.

which narrows the needs to find the reason why this suddenly occured at the 22k marker !

I wonder what year that would have been?

Posted By: Orac Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 03:49 AM
Originally Posted By: paul


why sure , Bill

I wouldn't put it past a scientist or a student these day's to introduce a mutagen into the mix just to prove evolution because
he has a personal grievance with Creation or religion , or
because he has been paid to do so.

especially since I have encountered what I have encountered on this forum.

that's step 1

there are no other step's

this experiment might show a probable cause of evolution
but it does not prove evolution , however until it has been replicated by other scientist
and might I add scientist that are creationist
I will not believe that it is proof of evolution or a probable cause of evolution.



You keep saying keep religion out of science discussion but here above you have bought your nutter religious beliefs front and centre into the discussion as your PRIME AND ONLY REASON for not believing science.

HOW DO YOU PROPOSE I ANSWER YOUR OBJECTIONS WITHOUT DISCUSSING YOUR NUTTER FUNDEMENTALIST RELIGIOUS BELIEFS?


I can speak for me personally I don't set out to upset or aggrevate you but it is your ridiculous assertions like the lunacy above that gets you into those discussions that cause you so much angst and your GOD beaten up.

So I ask you gently do you wish to retract the lunacy in your above statement or shall we start discussing what the lunacy is based around BECAUSE YOU STARTED THE DISCUSSION ON IT WITH THAT STATEMENT?
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 03:53 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_citrate

Quote:
Potassium citrate is produced by adding potassium bicarbonate or potassium carbonate to a solution of citric acid until effervescence ceases, filtering the solution and evaporating to granulation.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 04:21 AM
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/dm25liquid.html
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 04:23 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_potential
Posted By: Orac Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 04:29 AM
So do you retract your statement that science somehow rigs results?

See my issue Paul science doesn't give a flying toss whether there is a GOD if evolution and big bang are wrong you could make those 3 things facts and what happens in science will not be changed one bit.

We would simply be teaching GOD made laws, these are those laws and we would still need to use and learn those laws to feed the people, fight disease and do whatever it is GOD expects us to do.

It's usually a central part of relgions that you can't expect GOD to solve every problem in your life you are still expected to make your way in the world and that would involve and is what science is.

Thats why it is completely stupid to think SCIENCE gives a rats arse about the existance or not of a GOD we don't care and to suggest that science would need to cover up something is ridiculous.

Personally if I could disprove evolution of big bang I would do so in a heartbeat because Nobel prize fame and fortune await ... I can't and that's the issue to you.

On your side whether or not GOD exists matters because your religion ceases to exist. We get why science causes you such aggrevation but we will only cut you so much slack.

SCIENCE DOESN'T CEASE TO EXIST IF THERE IS A GOD ... GET IT
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 04:57 AM
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html

Quote:
the machinery for both transporting and metabolizing citrate was already present in these bacteria. But a series of knockout mutations broke the regulation of pre-existing citrate transport mechanisms, causing over-expression of a citrate transport gene, allowing citrate to be transported under both oxic and anaerobic conditions. If this is the case, then clearly this example of Darwinian "evolution" entails the loss of a molecular function, not the gain of a new one. And there was no wholesale acquisition of the ability to metabolize or, as Venema put it, "use" citrate.
In fact, as Behe notes, we don't really yet understand the precise molecular mechanisms that caused these E. coli to be able to uptake citrate under oxic conditions. So as far as we can tell, these changes entailed the origin of no new functional genes or proteins but might have resulted from a broken regulatory mechanism. We have not seen that natural selection and random mutation can produce functional, information-rich genes and proteins, and Venema is wrong to suggest otherwise.

Contra Venema, this example hardly shows the Darwinian evolution of a "new function," especially since E. coli already had the ability to uptake and metabolize citrate. Venema claims that CSI has arisen, but if we don't even know what mechanisms were involved in this change, how does he know that it is new CSI?
Posted By: Orac Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 05:01 AM
There is no point discussing anything because whatever evidence we give you will be rigged unless you retract your claim that science rigs things to show GOD doesn't exist.

WHAT DO YOU THINK WE ARE THE DEVIL'S WORK?.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 05:08 AM
oh,hello orac

how's that Religious study on Christianity coming along?

are you beginning to understand any of it?

if you come across something that you need help
with , just ask anyone here except me , I'm sure
they will gladly help you.

I try not to discuss Religion in a science forum.
Posted By: Orac Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 05:31 AM
Originally Posted By: paul


I try not to discuss Religion in a science forum.



YOU CAN'T DISCUSS SCIENCE ANYHOW BECAUSE SCIENCE LIES YOUR WORDS.

HENCE DISCUSSION IS POINTLESS

RETRACT OR GO AWAY ... DEFEAT BY LOGIC YET AGAIN



Again I warn you respect goes both ways show some respect for science and I will show some respect for you crazy religion.

RESPECT IS SUPPOSED TO BE CENTRAL TO RELIGIONS USUALLY.

You can not have a scientific argument if you don't accept science because of your religious beliefs. As we are in the NQS section your religion is thus fair game.

What happens next is up to you as you deny science and it lies and that is based on your religious belief you have no actual evidence to back up that claim. That is the argument we are about to have because its all we can argue over because of your position ... you have been warned ... YET AGAIN.

If you want to accept science is science it takes no sides there is only what can be shown and tested then we can discuss things I am not trying to stop discussion.
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 02:25 PM
Quote:
Again I warn you respect goes both ways show some respect for science and I will show some respect for you crazy religion.


HA !

it almost sounds like your respect would be something desired.

respect is something that is earned.

Quote:
That is the argument we are about to have because its all we can argue over because of your position ... you have been warned ... YET AGAIN.


just remember it takes two to tango.

this is my last reply to you as long as you continue
with your ranting and raving , so say what you want.


Posted By: Bill Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/23/12 06:11 PM
Originally Posted By: paul
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html

Quote:
Contra Venema, this example hardly shows the Darwinian evolution of a "new function," especially since E. coli already had the ability to uptake and metabolize citrate. Venema claims that CSI has arisen, but if we don't even know what mechanisms were involved in this change, how does he know that it is new CSI?


"how does he know that it is new CSI?" Well,possibly because no E.coli had ever shown the ability before. And there were 12 lines that were being monitored, but only one of them actually managed to start doing something that, according to your source, it was already capable of doing. And it took 30,000 generations (from 1988 to 2008) for it to figure out how to use its already built in ability. That sounds to me something like a whole new evolutionary change. It doesn't sound like something that could be expected to occur in the general population on a regular basis.

So gentle readers we see how creationists jump on evolutionary changes that have been shown to occur and try to trivialize major changes. Some of their explanations for things that are easily shown, such as the geological record showing that species that were plentiful in lower strata are completely missing in later strata. And that species that are plentiful in later strata are completely missing in earlier strata. That one takes some really exotic rationalization.

Bill Gill
Posted By: paul Re: Reply to Paul re Neat Experiment - 12/24/12 05:21 AM
http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/32246480851/innovation-or-renovation

Quote:
Innovation or Renovation?
By Ann Gauger

When is an innovation not an innovation? If by innovation you mean the evolution of something new, a feature not present before, then it would be stretching it to call the trait described by Blount et al. in “Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population” an innovation.




http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf

Quote:
In his paper in Quarterly Review of Biology, Dr. Michael Behe pointed out that E. coli was already capable of using citrate for anaerobic growth (when no oxygen was available). He postulated that a change in gene regulation could turn on citrate transport and permit growth on citrate under aerobic conditions.

After an enormous amount of work, having sequenced the genomes of many clones along the lineages that led to the ability to use citrate, as well as lineages that never did, and testing the phenotypes of identified mutations, Blount et al. have now reported that Behe was largely right. The key innovation was a shift in regulation of the citrate operon, caused by a rearrangement that brought it close to a new promoter.


That pretty much sum's it up.

however , if someone were to reproduce the experiment again and get the same results , they will probably be on the lookout for this loss of function , so the experiment has
shown that bacteria can regain a lost ability to metabolize a previously metabolized nutrient through loss of function.

this could be a very important adaptation.

possibly more important to mankind than any proof of
evolution would have ever dreamed of.




© Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums