What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Where does everyone stand in regards to...

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #741
So why aren't species like glabrata dying off now that there's nepenthes hamata in the same habitat?

Peter
 
  • #742
Does glabrata have sufficient survival abilities and resources as it is?
 
  • #743
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Jan. 12 2005,2:34)]So why aren't species like glabrata dying off now that there's nepenthes hamata in the same habitat?

Peter
Read carefully. I said same species. I just explained natural selection and how species evolve. You are comparing two species which is competition if they occupy the same niche. That's something tottally different.
 
  • #744
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Steve L @ Jan. 12 2005,10:30)]This is a conversation that many of you will have over and over throughout your life. You may find, as I have, that your opinion will evolve (heh, heh..) a bit one way or the other.

When you experience the birth of a child or the end of your rope, you may feel moved by a power that needs no explanation. This is faith. Faith is something that is actively sought. Real Faith is personal, it will never be handed to you or forced upon you. Faith needs no proof. How do you prove that love exists? I have faith that it does. I see it in the faces of my children every day.

I am in a science field. I have worked with science my whole life, and I love it. I do very much believe in evolution, and I do very much believe in a Higher Power. One does not exist to disprove the other.

This has been a circular argument and always will be. Evolution can be approached through science. Faith can not. Try not to get them confused.

Steve
I had one more point I wanted to add to this. Most of the problems you run into with comparisons between biblical creation and what we accept as evolutional development has to do with the literal translation of the Bible. If you look at the way creation unfolds in Genesis, the pattern is not unlike the pattern we hold for evolution. Separation of earth and sky, life in water before land, the order of creation follows our best scenario of evolution. The big difference is TIME. Why do we have to be so literal with the bible? I believe the bible should be used as a tool for faith, not a tool for science. The bible is full of contradictions when taken word for word. Eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? Noah was over 400 years old, and creation took place in 6 days. Don't get so caught up in literal time.

I believe that Jesus died to take away my sin, NOT MY MIND.

When I want to research science I look to recent information. When I want a guide for faith I look to the bible. Would you use a 2000 year old medical text for modern day surgery?  

Steve
 
  • #745
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Steve L @ Jan. 12 2005,4:44)]Steve
I had one more point I wanted to add to this. Most of the problems you run into with comparisons between biblical creation and what we accept as evolutional development has to do with the literal translation of the Bible. If you look at the way creation unfolds in Genesis, the pattern is not unlike the pattern we hold for evolution. Separation of earth and sky, life in water before land, the order of creation follows our best scenario of evolution. The big difference is TIME. Why do we have to be so literal with the bible? I believe the bible should be used as a tool for faith, not a tool for science. The bible is full of contradictions when taken word for word. Eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? Noah was over 400 years old, and creation took place in 6 days. Don't get so caught up in literal time.

I believe that Jesus died to take away my sin, NOT MY MIND.

When I want to research science I look to recent information. When I want a guide for faith I look to the bible. Would you use a 2000 year old medical text for modern day surgery?  

Steve[/QUOTE]
Agreed! The Biblical account of creation wasn't from the perspective of a scientific document. It was simply stating that God created. Further, when people get hung up on the two descriptions of creation, it was simply the author's intent to go from general creation to a more specific description of humanity. Many people get can't see the forest for the trees, missing the point of an account.

Some things are literal and some are figurative / metaphor. Yet others are prophetic, poetic, historical, theological. We have to look at the big picture.
 
  • #746
Sorry for the confusion. If the genus developed step by step, and plants with very primitive pitcher forms died out, why isn't glabrata dying out when there is a fanged species in the same habitat? Probably because there is plenty of room, and there are plenty of bugs. So there is no reason for glabrata to die out, and no reason for plants earlier in the evolution process to die out.

Peter
 
  • #747
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Jan. 12 2005,7:05)]Sorry for the confusion.  If the genus developed step by step, and plants with very primitive pitcher forms died out, why isn't glabrata dying out when there is a fanged species in the same habitat?  Probably because there is plenty of room, and there are plenty of bugs.  So there is no reason for glabrata to die out, and no reason for plants earlier in the evolution process to die out.
Glabrata is succeeding so every nepenthes species that ever existed in history should have succeeded? Does extinction not exist in the creationist reality?
 
  • #748
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]When you experience the birth of a child or the end of your rope, you may feel moved by a power that needs no explanation. This is faith.
I call it hopeful thinking.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]How do you prove that love exists? I have faith that it does.
Because love is an emotion and you can feel it. You can also figure out the hormones that cause love/pleasure/etc.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]and I do very much believe in a Higher Power. One does not exist to disprove the other.
Evolution does not disprove a higher power in any way. It does not explain what happens when we die, it does not say religions are wrong, etc. AE, you might think it's not compatible with ANY religion (I don't think it is... aldough I do think that if you take what the bible says as true it is... along with other religios books) but evolution has nothing to do with religion. It only says that all modern organisms have a common ancestor and that species become other species through natural selection. That is all evolution is. There are arguments over how it happens etc. but It is all still evolution.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So why aren't species like glabrata dying off now that there's nepenthes hamata in the same habitat?
why should they?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]what we accept as evolutional development has to do with the literal translation of the Bible. If you look at the way creation unfolds in Genesis, the pattern is not unlike the pattern we hold for evolution.
oh yes it is. besides obvious things like plants coming before the sun, The earth was dark and void at first (the earth came before the sun), water came before land,
(before the sun is created... yet there was already light..)
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed is in itself,
...whose seed was in
itself, after his kind:
that to me says that grass was CREATED and not evolved... and that things only come from the same things... so evolution can't take place
then AFTER the earth was created and there was light,
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
also.
then apparently he divided night and day yet AGAIN.
confused.gif

then fish and birds were created (first came fish, then land animals like reptiles, and THEN birds...)
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth after his kind: and it was so.
so first came fish and birds, then land animals...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]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.
... no wonder people think they're the best next thing next to god.
doesn't it say later that god created man from dust? well, that doesn't seem like evolution to me now does it?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Why do we have to be so literal with the bible?

because the bible says it is the truth and you can't just dismiss whole stories it says are true (adam and eve, the noah's flood, the creation story) and selectively believe what suits you. (can you say "people ignore facts that are inconvenient to them & believe ideas that are convenient to them"?)
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Some things are literal and some are figurative / metaphor. Yet others are prophetic, poetic, historical, theological. We have to look at the big picture.
where do you draw the line? many "metaphors" or "poems" etc. are presented to you as truth. like I said you can't just select which ones you want to believe and which ones you don't The bible says it is true so you either believe what it says is true or not.
 
  • #749
No. A lot of species survival depends on Natural disasters/conditions (see Nep. Viking thread). Hardiness via genetic mutation allows more species diversity and higher survival rates for some species. Why is N. khaniana so hardy and another species so hard to grow? Because of genetic mutation/evolution allowed that one plant to fit in a nich. In the present Nep debate perhaps one species can survive with fewer bugs, or less light, or less water, or catches fewer but bigger bugs. Like Darwin's finches one species could develop a large opening (lowii for example) to catch large nitrogen rich deposits and another species a small opening (Aristolichioides, I believe) to catch smaller insects.
 
  • #750
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;
and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he
had made.
so if the days are actually eons... we are still on that seventh day... so he ended being with us? or is this another day? or did he take a break (why the hell does a perfect being need a break anyway? he gets tired? GASP!) for just a little while and then came back?
and apparently all organisms (except adam and eve? it says they could get meat from them...) were vegetarians... another conflict with evolution...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole
face of the ground.
people it say it didn't rain before the flood (and there were no rainbows)... God broke the laws of nature yet again.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground
this is what I meant.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of
the garden thou mayest freely eat:
002:017 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt
not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die.
why the heck did he put the tree of knowledge there in the first place? How did adam/eve know that they shouldn't disobay god (after all, he talks in many metaphors and riddles doesn't he? LOL) if they were just ignorant fools that don't know right from wrong since they haven't eaten the fruit?

but I guess that's not really the creation story any more :p
 
  • #751
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Like Darwin's finches one species could develop a large opening (lowii for example) to catch large nitrogen rich deposits and another species a small opening (Aristolichioides, I believe) to catch smaller insects.
besides doesn't lowii get it's nutrients from bird poop?

We aren't really sure how carnivorous plants evolved because plants are extremely rare to fossilize.

and like they've said before, the two species can coexist in the same environment. It doesn't matter how simple or complex they are (why aren't bacteria dead? they're trillions of times more simple than a sloth), if they can survive in the same environment, they will.
Whole species don't evolve and the old ones die out, populations evolve and if the old ones can still survive then they survive too :p
 
  • #752
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Steve L @ Jan. 12 2005,4:44)]I had one more point I wanted to add to this. Most of the problems you run into with comparisons between biblical creation and what we accept as evolutional development has to do with the literal translation of the Bible. If you look at the way creation unfolds in Genesis, the pattern is not unlike the pattern we hold for evolution. Separation of earth and sky, life in water before land, the order of creation follows our best scenario of evolution. The big difference is TIME. Why do we have to be so literal with the bible? I believe the bible should be used as a tool for faith, not a tool for science. The bible is full of contradictions when taken word for word. Eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? Noah was over 400 years old, and creation took place in 6 days. Don't get so caught up in literal time.
There are a million different ways that you can translate or decode the bible, which is obvious by all the different religions there are. Science dismisses it because of that. (Among other things)
 
  • #753
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Jan. 12 2005,7:05)]Sorry for the confusion. If the genus developed step by step, and plants with very primitive pitcher forms died out, why isn't glabrata dying out when there is a fanged species in the same habitat? Probably because there is plenty of room, and there are plenty of bugs. So there is no reason for glabrata to die out, and no reason for plants earlier in the evolution process to die out.

Peter
OK. Try to get this straight, i don't know whats not being clear to you.

I am not talking about competition between species, i'm talking about one species developing within itself.

Do you mean a subspecies or cultivar or something? If you expect all of them to die out in one shot you are wrong. Evolution doesn't function that way.
 
  • #754
While I'm thinking about extinction... if every organism was created as is, and a species goes extinct, the world is short one species forever, isn't it? People estimate that around 100 species go extinct every day in the world these days, and the rate is increasing. With all these extinctions shouldn't the world be emptied of a majority of all wildlife within millions if not thousands of years? Will it just be us and the relatively select few species that can coexist with us (rats, cockroaches, pigeons...)? Did God not see that coming?

Or are new species created periodically as God sees fit? Are new species we're discovering (many a day... I can't find a number) freshly created? Has anyone ever heard of a new population of animals not being there one day and being there the next? What's the impact on the environment when suddenly a new population of organisms shows up and starts eating? Do these things have natural predators? Do those predators in some cases have to be instinctually adjusted to recognize these things as prey?

Beyond the twistings of a few anti-evolutionists desperate for explanations, I've heard of absolutely no references to continuous creation in the bible. There's the progression of Genesis, but I was under the impression that the process ended with humans (and that implying otherwise would be blasphemous).

Incidentally, this is all assuming scientists are completely wrong about the previous five mass extinctions in the earth's history. If nothing evolves it probably wouldn't have even taken all of those extinctions to homogenize the world's population into large numbers of (relatively) few species.

EDIT: Googled and found these after posting...
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/extinct.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/resourc....000.asp
 
  • #755
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 12 2005,7:25)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Some things are literal and some are figurative / metaphor. Yet others are prophetic, poetic, historical, theological. We have to look at the big picture.
where do you draw the line? many "metaphors" or "poems" etc. are presented to you as truth. like I said you can't just select which ones you want to believe and which ones you don't The bible says it is true so you either believe what it says is true or not.
If one were to read a whole book of the Bible, as opposed to just one verse, it becomes incredibly evident as to how things are being rendered. The context gets easier to determine the more one reads the whole Bible and is referred to as having good hermeneutics.
 
  • #756
[b said:
Quote[/b] ], it becomes incredibly evident as to how things are being rendered.
obviously not or there would be agreement within christians as of where you draw the line. in this very thread we've seen that. Some christians believe there was a noah's flood, others believe that it was based on sea levels rising, others say it's a metaphor, etc..
so it is NOT clear.
 
  • #757
A lot has to do with how one was taught, as opposed to reading and praying on a consistent basis. There's a difference between going in with a set approach and asking God to teach you, with an open mind. the more ome reads and prays, the more likely you will be able to interpret properly.
 
  • #758
Many members of these sects who disagree would probably say exactly that, wouldn't they? All feeling God had helped them acquire a more accurate interpretation?
 
  • #759
They sure would.
Remember that you are not the only one. You say there's proof for christianity, other religions say the same about theirs. You say that prayer will make you see the light, others say the same.
 
  • #760
Here is my theory about all the different world religions..they are ALL right!
The old devout Christian grandmother who dies..she REALLY DOES go to heaven to spend eternity with Jesus!
The Hindu who lives a good life, He really is reincarnated and comes back one step higher..
the Bhuddist really does reach nirvana.
The Viking warriors really are whooping up in Valhalla..
the American Indians are with their Great Spirit..

I think all religions are just different ways of intrepretating God..
God is too big for one religion..
He can make them ALL correct if he wants to..

I actually had this conversation in college..really scared me, turned me off on Christianity for a long time..
between me and "Born Again friend" lets call her "BAF".

Baf - only those who are saved will go to heaven, all other will go to Hell.
Me - So Ghandi is in hell?
Baf - well...yes, I would have to say so.
Me - A newborn baby born in the wilds of deepest africa, born to non-christian parents, and dies at one day old..that baby goes to hell?
Baf - yes.

AHHHHHHH!!!!
How can people think that?
I know that God is not sending babies to hell!!
and..there have been millions of good, decent, god-loving people in the past, and God has not punished them all because they didnt accept the "correct" religion!
no way..My God would never do that.
So I think as long as you are truely a good person, you end up right with God..and if you really believe, deep in your spirit, that when you die you will have some specific experience, the God is capable of giving you that..whatever it is they want..

How can any Human say they know what God wants or thinks?
its impossible..(and terribly arrogant!)
I think ALL religions can be valid..

Scot
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top