The Christian topic  permalink

It had to have been created

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 103
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by genuineJames42 (U13255774) on Monday, 15th September 2008

    The tubeworm only works when it is a tubeworm,

    And it only survives when the bacteria that feed it, feed it.

    They have been DESIGNED to work together just as many other symbiotic creatures,


    James smiley - laugh

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by zyzygy (U2824458) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    James,
    The tubeworm only works when it is a tubeworm, 
    Can't argue with that – tubeworms are tubeworms.

    And it only survives when the bacteria that feed it, feed it. 
    Incorrect. The tubeworm larva possesses a mouth stomach and gut – and does not possess the symbiotic bacteria. However, the bacteria can infect it at this stage. They find a nice comfortable host. The tubeworm now has an inbuilt energy source which it can use when it turns into its adult phase. The bacteria are so good at providing it with energy that it no longer needs any other source and so its mouth, etc, are not needed and because development of these organs would come at an energy cost to the adult tubeworm, they will be selected against. No problem for evolution.

    They have been DESIGNED to work together just as many other symbiotic creatures, 
    Poor design – if the larva does not become infected with the bacteria it will die when it reaches the adult stage.

    However, the tubeworm and some clams that live in the same environment do provide us with a prediction that if true helps to support evolutionary theory.

    The clams in question also possess a symbiotic bacteria, but in this case the bacteria are inherited by the clam's offspring – the clams do not get them from the surrounding environment like the tubeworms do. The prediction is that when DNA analysis is done, the evolutionary trees of the clam and the bacteria will match – if the clams speciate, the bacteria will also speciate. This match is found.

    On the other hand, in the case of the tubeworm, since the bacteria are not passed on from generation to generation but are obtained from the environment, the prediction is that there will be no match in their evolutionary trees. This is what we find.

    There's an article here about it:
    www.astrobio.net/new...

    Now that's how science should work – a theory is developed to explain observations, but to show that the theory isn't just an ad hoc description of current observations you have to make predictions and see if they are true.

    Obviously creationists wouldn't accept that the evolutionary trees produced here by DNA analysis are actually evolutionary trees. It doesn't matter. Creationists still have to explain why evolutionary science predicted that we would get those matching patterns, whatever they want to call them.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Gary Heron (U2441558) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    zyzygy,

    Well said. Creationists seem to think that Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and that all the other biologists went a long with it for no good reason. They ignore the fact that time and time again Darwin's theory predicts and explains what we see in nature, creationism does not.
    It is the evidence which supports evolution plus evolution's power to predict and explain that causes biologists to accept it.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by zyzygy (U2824458) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    It is the evidence which supports evolution plus evolution's power to predict and explain that causes biologists to accept it. 
    Yes, I wonder if any creationists here could remind us of any predictions made and borne out by creation "science".

    And I do mean predictions - not prophecies!

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by genuineJames42 (U13255774) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008


    posted by zyzygy
    Yes, I wonder if any creationists here could remind us of any predictions made and borne out by creation "science".

    And I do mean predictions - not prophecies!
     


    Sorry I do not see how what you say applies to anything.

    >>>Have you worked out yet why men have nipples?<<<<

    When I went to work in a factory full of machine which all worked together so as to produce a product.

    I did not try to explain how they evolved because I knew they were all required for the job in hand.

    All of them Even though over the years they had evolved, that was because man is not too bright when it comes to creating things.

    >>>So how did lichen evolve?<<<

    James

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Baconsarni (U1757458) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    genuineJames42

    The tubeworm only works when it is a tubeworm, 
    I'm not altogether sure, but I think you may be right there, Ted.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Omi Fantabulosa (U10136804) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    The prediction is that when DNA analysis is done, the evolutionary trees of the clam and the bacteria will match – if the clams speciate, the bacteria will also speciate. This match is found.

    On the other hand, in the case of the tubeworm, since the bacteria are not passed on from generation to generation but are obtained from the environment, the prediction is that there will be no match in their evolutionary trees. This is what we find.  


    I want you to read that again, James. And then read it again. It demonstrates that evolution is how life works .... and using YOUR example.

    Then think about the paper-thin logic of your claim.

    The read - REALLY READ - the link he provided.

    Then think about the paper-thin logic of your claim.




    One small thing, zyzygy --

    << Now that's how science should work – a theory is developed to explain observations, but to show that the theory isn't just an ad hoc description of current observations you have to make predictions and see if they are true. >>

    It's not a theory - it's an hypothesis.

    Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

    Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. www.wilstar.com/theo...

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    GaryHeron

    Well said. Creationists seem to think that Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and that all the other biologists went a long with it for no good reason. They ignore the fact that time and time again Darwin's theory predicts and explains what we see in nature, creationism does not.  Darwin also said that human beings and everything else came from a single ancestor. I don''t accept or believe that human beings are so stupid to accept they are related to tubewoms. Mind you what a roaring business the greeting card trade could do having a load of new relatives to send greeting cards to.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by DaddyDA (U6715142) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008



    hi genuineJames42

    Your point about working in a factory & simply accepting that you were using a machine, developed for a specific purpose, fascinated me.

    I sit at my desk, on my break at work, typing into my computer.
    From my point of view it is the 'machine' through which I book engineer service calls, order parts for customers, check on statistics & simply earn my daily crust.

    However, unlike you I am the sort of person who needs to know how this system works. Although I do not have detailed systems knowledge, I know I pass my work to a server & that server then passes the jobs to our Engineers lap-tops.
    I know that as I type letters on thisd screen they are translated into lines of code within the computer's software & saved as magnectic images on some massive hard-drive somewhere.

    It is not enough for me to simply accept that the computer works by some kind of 'magic', God gave me a mind & I have to explore the question of 'how it works.'

    The creationist explanation is far too simplistic to account for God giveen diversity. Such an explanation would leave me in the kind of blind ignorance that might simply accept that if I get ill I have been a bad person. If creationism was ever fully embraced there would have been a massive impedendence to human knowledge & understanding. We could still have been in the dark ages.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Alf_Amale (U6753927) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    >>>So how did lichen evolve?<<<

    James

    --------

    how many more of these have you got james? when this one is answered are you going to just paste in another one?

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    DaddyDA

    The creationist explanation is far too simplistic to account for God giveen diversity. Such an explanation would leave me in the kind of blind ignorance that might simply accept that if I get ill I have been a bad person. If creationism was ever fully embraced there would have been a massive impedendence to human knowledge & understanding. We could still have been in the dark ages.  It was the creationists ideas that brought civilisation to this world. There are no atheists or evolutionists who have improved this world over a period of time. On the contrary, the atheist ideas of communism brought this world into conflict with freedom and religion.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Baconsarni (U1757458) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    persecuted


    ... what a roaring business the greeting card trade could do having a load of new relatives to send greeting cards to. 

    smiley - ok Good one!

    "To my great aunt: congratulations on the birth of your new species".

    flatrock.org.nz/topi...

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Gary Heron (U2441558) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Persecuted,

    Evolution has been tested and examined for 150 years and has not failed yet. All life forms on the earth are related. Your like or dislike for this fact are irelevant to its truth.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    GaryHeron

    Evolution has been tested and examined for 150 years and has not failed yet. All life forms on the earth are related. Your like or dislike for this fact are irelevant to its truth. 
    Evolution even after 150 years is still a theory not a fact. Also, any potential person or thing cannot be interlinked to something else. Such as a human being cannot be a tubeworm and vice versa. So the idea that all living life have the same common ancestor probably came to darwin when he one too many and started to see pink elephants as well.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Ben (U2045965) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Today's creationist gems:

    The tubeworm only works when it is a tubeworm, 

    and:

    ....a human being cannot be a tubeworm and vice versa 

    Makes you wonder why creationism isn't taken more seriously as a scientific discipline.

    On a slightly more serious not Persecuted, you've been told countless times that evolution is a fact, natural selection is the theory, and that a theory has a different and very robust meaning in science. You unwillingness to take new information on board speaks volumes to others about your tendency to adhere to dogma.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Alf_Amale (U6753927) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Such as a human being cannot be a tubeworm and vice versa. So the idea that all living life have the same common ancestor probably came to darwin when he one too many and started to see pink elephants as well.

    --------

    Its not an idea dreamed up in someone’s head. Its an idea based on data and evidence.

    Who ever said a human can be a tubeworm and vice versa? You are the only one that has suggested it. If it was true it would be evidence for a supernatural occurrence.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by DaddyDA (U6715142) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008



    Hi Percy

    Nice to chat with you again. I'm not that sure that human society developed as a result of the creationists. What you are talking about here is a 'moral myth', not a historical fact.

    Having a pop at Communism does not let you off the hook either. In fact, it is quite likely that, given the gospel accounts, Jesus Christ could well having been seen as advocating a Communist Society.
    The sermon on the mount has been taken by some Christians as Revolution theology.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Ben

    ....a human being cannot be a tubeworm and vice versa
    Makes you wonder why creationism isn't taken more seriously as a scientific discipline. 
    I am only commenting on darwin's common ancestor theory, when no tubeworm can be like a human being or have the potential to be a human being to have a common ancestor.

    natural selection is the theory, and that a theory has a different and very robust meaning in science. You unwillingness to take new information on board  

    Evolution, according to the dictionary, natural gradual development. Yet, there have been dramatic climatic changes from time to time not enough time for things to slip into something different quickly.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Gary Heron (U2441558) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Persecuted,

    No matter what arguments people put forward, no matter what evidence they provide you simply refuse to accept it and cling to an ancient creation myth instead.

    My question to you is simply why?

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Oak King (rtd) (U4576970) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    My question to you is simply why? 

    Because a state of denial less painful than admitting you have been duped.

    BB )O(
    H

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    DaddyDA

    Nice to chat with you again. I'm not that sure that human society developed as a result of the creationists. What you are talking about here is a 'moral myth', not a historical fact.  It's the creationist account of life that formed people's opinion and ideas how life was formed and should be formed. 'All things bright and beautiful.'

    Having a pop at Communism does not let you off the hook either. In fact, it is quite likely that, given the gospel accounts, Jesus Christ could well having been seen as advocating a Communist Society. The sermon on the mount has been taken by some Christians as Revolution theology.  Jesus does not believe that religion is the opuim of the people but that people should live and breath God's words. Not from Marxists mouths.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by DaddyDA (U6715142) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008



    Thanks Percy

    what would the Rev Moon have had to say on this subject?

    Is it covered in Divine Principle ?

    smiley - smiley

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    GaryHeron

    No matter what arguments people put forward, no matter what evidence they provide you simply refuse to accept it and cling to an ancient creation myth instead.   I have always believed that Darwin and Karl Marx were linked by their one track materialistic minds. That's how their illusions were caused which effects others of the same elk. But history shows, going back thousands of years in different cultures and races, that creationism is the natural way to approach the subject why people and things exist. And I am no different, naturally.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    DaddyDA

    Is it covered in Divine Principle ?  The Unifcation movement founded by Rev.Moon is the only religious organisation throughout the world that teaches creationism as a principle and a fact:


    The Principle of Creation
    Exposition of the Divine Principle 1996 Translation Chapter 1 The Principle of Creation. Throughout history, people have anguished over the fundamental questions of human life and ...

    www.unification.net/dp96/dp96-1-1.html

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Steavey,

    Explain to us all again why you think that Eve had sex with the snake in the Garden of Eden

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Ben (U2045965) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    I am only commenting on darwin's common ancestor theory...  Ok, you're commenting on evolution...

    ...when no tubeworm can be like a human being or have the potential to be a human being to have a common ancestor.  I'm really not quite aure what you're getting at, but if you're suggesting a tube worm could become a human, then you really aren't commenting on evolution at all, you're commenting on miracles.

    It's either that, or you're suggesting a tubeworm cannot be a common ancestor with a human, in which case you don't appear to understand what a common ancestor is. What you said is like saying I can't become my cousin. Which is true, but we still have a common ancestor.

    Evolution, according to the dictionary, natural gradual development. Yet, there have been dramatic climatic changes from time to time not enough time for things to slip into something different quickly. 
    Indeed, and in those cases some species go extinct, and others that are robust to changes survive. I fail to see the point you're making here. Are you suggesting that in times past there have been climatechanges so quick that nothing could survive? What changes?

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Baconsarni (U1757458) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    persecuted

    The Unifcation movement founded by Rev.Moon is the only religious organisation throughout the world that teaches creationism as a principle and a fact. 

    I think you missed out a word there that would enable that sentence to convey even more......

    The Unifcation movement founded by Rev.Moon is the only religious organisation throughout the world that STILL teaches creationism as a principle and a fact.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by DaddyDA (U6715142) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008



    Thanks Percy

    daddyDA

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Ben

    ...when no tubeworm can be like a human being or have the potential to be a human being to have a common ancestor.
    Quoted from this message


    ......., or you're suggesting a tubeworm cannot be a common ancestor with a human, in which case you don't appear to understand what a common ancestor is. What you said is like saying I can't become my cousin. Which is true, but we still have a common ancestor.  Human beings can have a common ancestor but they don't share them with other things such as tubeworms. So there's another darwin theory disproved.


    Evolution, according to the dictionary, natural gradual development. Yet, there have been dramatic climatic changes from time to time not enough time for things to slip into something different quickly.
    Indeed, and in those cases some species go extinct, and others that are robust to changes survive.   Evolution makes it clear there has to be gradual development. So there's another theory disproved.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Baconsarni

    The Unifcation movement founded by Rev.Moon is the only religious organisation throughout the world that teaches creationism as a principle and a fact.


    I think you missed out a word there that would enable that sentence to convey even more......

    The Unifcation movement founded by Rev.Moon is the only religious organisation throughout the world that STILL teaches creationism  
    That would not be true. Unification Movement teaches creationism clearly and accurately as a principle and fact. Others do not teach creationism as a principle and fact in the same way even though they teach it some how in some way.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by JohnArmagh (U1396699) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Ben,

    What you said is like saying I can't become my cousin. 

    I think technically you can.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    DaddyDA


    Thanks Percy

    daddyDA 
    I do believe that people who want to understand creationism should study the principles of creationism found in Divine Principle. Genesis is not the best source. Since it is one of other revelations given throughout the Bible.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by genuineJames42 (U13255774) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008


    posted by Alf_Amale

    >>>So how did lichen evolve?<<<

    James

    --------

    how many more of these have you got james? when this one is answered are you going to just paste in another one?
     


    Yes

    why do you find it so hard to answer?

    James

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by genuineJames42 (U13255774) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    For some here that have little or no knowledge of the tube worm it does not have a mouth and is dependent on the bacteria to provide its food no bacteria no tube worm.

    On the other hand the tubeworm feeds the bacteria no tube worms no bacteria.

    It is the same for lichen, which is also in the symbiotic group.

    How about my question on nipples?

    My next question will be seeds, were did they come from?

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Alf_Amale (U6753927) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Yes

    why do you find it so hard to answer?

    James

    ----------

    Because I don’t know the answer, I not sure what it would prove if no one knew the answer but I m sure someone does. My point was, even if you got the worlds authority on lichens to answer your question you would just ignore it and pick another adnorsium.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Omi Fantabulosa (U10136804) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Too bad you never got around to thinking, genuineJames42. Or reading the link. You just came here to assert the teeny tiny bit you (think you) know about how the real world works and argue with everyone .... no matter what the facts are, or what the rules of logic are.

    Some people call that Christianity.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Fleecey (U3941393) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    How about my question on nipples?

    My next question will be seeds, were did they come from?
     


    James,

    zyzygy went to a lot of trouble to respond to your first question. You've just ignored it.

    Call me Betty, but I think you should acknowledge the points s/he raised before moving on to any more questions.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Ben (U2045965) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Human beings can have a common ancestor but they don't share them with other things such as tubeworms. So there's another darwin theory disproved. 
    Cobblers, that statement is nothing more than an unsupported assertion. Phylogenetics proves you wrong.

    Evolution makes it clear there has to be gradual development. So there's another theory disproved. 
    Unless you can give me figures on rates of evolution, and examples of climatic changes that meant those those rates would be outstripped, then it's not disproved at all. Plus you'd have to demonstrate that the climatic changes affected all niches in all parts of the world at this rate, and that no organisms were preadapted to be able to handle these changes. It takes a mere scratching of the service of creationist arguments to expose them as nonsense.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Ben (U2045965) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    It is the same for lichen, which is also in the symbiotic group.

    How about my question on nipples?

    My next question will be seeds, were did they come from? 

    James, it takes very little effort to find the answers to this, I just did so. Your entire quest seems to be to find a single question that can't be answered by a member of the BBC messageboards community, and then crow that evolution is false. If this tactic is the level you're at, then I guess these small victories are all you can go on.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by JohnArmagh (U1396699) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    genuineJames42

    You clearly have no understanding of the concept of biological evolution, if you did you would not spout such errant, inarticulate inconsistent, and incoherent nonsense.

    And adding a silly little laugh only makes you (and your god) look silly.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Ben

    Human beings can have a common ancestor but they don't share them with other things such as tubeworms. So there's another darwin theory disproved.
    Cobblers, that statement is nothing more than an unsupported assertion. Phylogenetics proves you wrong. 
    Biggest nonsense so far that's been revealed on this message has been done by you, by thinking that human beings are related to tubeworms and share the same common ancestor. It does not get as crazy as this.


    Evolution makes it clear there has to be gradual development. So there's another theory disproved.
    Unless you can give me figures on rates of evolution, 

    Cambridge dictionary on line:

    evolution Show phonetics
    noun [U]
    the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years, or a gradual process of change and development:

    and examples of climatic changes 
    Ice samples taken from Greenland from a period of 100,000 years, which itself experienced tremendous dramtic climatic changes from the 10th century AD to the 14th century AD, prove that there have been sudden climatic changes: source BBC 2 Sunday 07/09/08 between 9pm and 10 pm.



    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by JohnArmagh (U1396699) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    persecuted


    Biggest nonsense so far that's been revealed on this message has been done by you, by thinking that human beings are related to tubeworms and share the same common ancestor. It does not get as crazy as this.
     


    Well you and I believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. When put in perspective it is far more likely (even going on the evidence alone) that human beings have a common ancestry with tubeworms than that a person could rise from the dead.

    So how can someone believe a person can rise from the dead if they think it is impossible for human beings to have a common ancestry with tubeworms??

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by genuineJames42 (U13255774) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008


    posted by Fleecey
    James,

    zyzygy went to a lot of trouble to respond to your first question. You've just ignored it.

    Call me Betty, but I think you should acknowledge the points s/he raised before moving on to any more questions.
     


    You are obviously easily satisfied with the explanation, then people who love to believe in evolution are easily satisfied regardless of whether the answer is sound or not.

    People are quite happy with what Darwin postulated but it did not make it true, in fact the flaws in his postulating were quickly exposed.

    What we have now is the continued dripping of the tap of evolution, and the repetitious ramblings on dates that the populace has become hypnotised into thinking, some one, some were, has proved something. This of coarse they have not, nor is their data founded on fact, it is still a fixation which is proffered by the errant evolutionist.

    James

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Ben (U2045965) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    I think technically you can.  
    Perhaps in Royston Vasey....

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by JohnArmagh (U1396699) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    genuineJames42

    And I address my previous post to you as well - explain if you would be so kind.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Muddy_Waters (U2440707) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Biggest nonsense so far that's been revealed on this message has been done by you, by thinking that human beings are related to tubeworms and share the same common ancestor. It does not get as crazy as this.  

    Yeah, I sometimes find it hard to believe that such a primitive, under-evolved creature could emerge from the gene pool that also produced the amazing tubeworm.

    But reluctantly I have to bow to the evidence which shows that the two of you are related.

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    JohnArmagh

    Biggest nonsense so far that's been revealed on this message has been done by you, by thinking that human beings are related to tubeworms and share the same common ancestor. It does not get as crazy as this.

    Well you and I believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. When put in perspective it is far more likely (even going on the evidence alone) that human beings have a common ancestry with tubeworms than that a person could rise from the dead.  
    I don't believe what happened to Jesus happened exactly as Christians have traditionally believed:

    Resurrection:

    www.unification.net/...

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Muddy_Waters

    Biggest nonsense so far that's been revealed on this message has been done by you, by thinking that human beings are related to tubeworms and share the same common ancestor. It does not get as crazy as this.
    Yeah, I sometimes find it hard to believe that such a primitive, under-evolved creature could emerge from the gene pool that also produced the amazing tubeworm.

    But reluctantly I have to bow to the evidence which shows that the two of you are related. 

    Contrary to what people may believe about me, I have not gone mad and accepted the nonsense of tubeworms being related to me. For a start they don't even look like me or think like me. In fact, how many relatives that you know of are prepared to kill and eat?

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Omi Fantabulosa (U10136804) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    << The slug-like creature found living at the bottom of a Swedish lake shares its ancestry with people. >> news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...

    << DNA shared by people and coral >> and fruit flies and worms. findarticles.com/p/a...


    << worms, yeast, and people share genes for aging >> findarticles.com/p/a...

    << Biologists have laid a new basis for studying human obesity by identifying almost all the genes that regulate fat storage and metabolism in a small animal, the laboratory roundworm.

    The finding should provide leads to the many unknown genes that regulate fat storage in people and to the defects in the genes that underlie many obesity cases. >> query.nytimes.com/gs...


    You are only a few hundred years behind the times, son. We are the same proteins as amoebas and worms, with the same chemicals - DNA and RNA - mediating the same processes.

    Next you are going to tell us that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

    This is all a vast embarrassment to Christianity - which doesn't need any more of them.

    How does it make you feel, knowing that you are embarrassing all of Christianity?


    www.sciencedaily.com...

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Omi Fantabulosa

    << The slug-like creature found living at the bottom of a Swedish lake shares its ancestry with people. >> news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...

    << DNA shared by people and coral >> and fruit flies and worms. findarticles.com/p/a... 


    Human beings create things with the same components for different purposes and are not related. God would also grow genetic materials for different things from people for different purposes. What makes people and things different is their purposes. Those of the same purposes are the ones who could be regarded as being related. But the purpose of tubeworms is exceedingly different from humans so are definetly not related.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.