Yes, it’s a silly picture. Got your attention, though.
The Cambrian “explosion” that occurred 543 million years ago is one of the biggest mysteries of biology. It is at this point in the fossil record that a multitude of animal forms suddenly appears, for reasons that are not well understood. The first animals preceded the explosion, but they were presumably small, fragile and ephemeral, containing little or nothing able to fossilize.
The earliest putative animal fossils date to the Ediacarian period, about 630 to 542 million years ago. These primitive organisms “must have had a significant complement of genes inherited from their ancestors, that allowed multicellularity, differentiation and signaling” to emerge, Summons says.
Genetic analysis shows that the first sponges date to 650 to 700 million years ago, says Kevin Peterson, an associate professor of biological sciences at Dartmouth College, who adds that sponges were probably the last common ancestor of all animal life.
Solid article with interesting questions about the origins of the gut, nervous system, aerobic metabolism. Should be a fun project for years.
Hmmm, so I’ve been bathing with my relatives….
Thanks, Eideard, a great article. After reading the link, my eyes look pretty much like that picture.
I can’t wait for the “creationists” to jump right in.
i have a couple serious questions i’d like to pose before the inevitable religious debate breaks out
i understand and respect that good number of people believe that the earth was created in its current form 6,000 years ago — i really want to know how creationists reconcile the problem of the speed of light as a constant —
1.) are the stars less than 6,000 light years away?
2.) was einstein wrong?
3.) and if einstein was wrong, then what is the speed of light?
4.) how big is the universe?
5.) why is not possible that the big bang was not the moment mentioned in genesis?
6.) why is not possible that that the days mentioned in genesis are metaphorical?
7.) if the bible is meant to be taken literally, then why do we need preachers to interpret it for us?
8.) given that god is omnipotent, why would it be impossible for him to create the world in the way science seems to show? clearly he could have done it that way.
i truly am not being flippant here, it’s just that serious discourse tends to be drowned out around here — i know i am guilt of half-baked rants myself
all answers greatly appreciated.
sincerely,
grog
Yes, but this doesn’t asnwer the pivotal question- where does Barney fit into The Lord’s plan?
follow on question, more on-topic with the original post
also, why do people find evolution so repugnant? is it just because it wasn’t mentioned in the bible? or do you just find the proposed idea of being descended from apes to be unpalatable?
Actually, I’m just really interested in what this project will learn. I can’t wait to hear the results!!
#3 – grog,
Homo Sapiens is a rationalizing rather than a rational species. The young earthers will find answers to this. It’s not that hard. I could do it, just for fun. Let me try:
1.) are the stars less than 6,000 light years away? no. but god created the light already in transit between the stars and us.
2.) was einstein wrong? no. but light was already in transit, see above.
3.) and if einstein was wrong, then what is the speed of light? c.
4.) how big is the universe? unknown. (This is actually true even by science. We can only determine the size of the observable universe.)
5.) why is not possible that the big bang was not the moment mentioned in genesis? because the big bang does not accurately reflect what is in the bible. Since the bible is Right, the big bang must be wrong.
6.) why is not possible that that the days mentioned in genesis are metaphorical? The bible is the literal truth, the word of god. It says days. It means days.
7.) if the bible is meant to be taken literally, then why do we need preachers to interpret it for us? We don’t.
8.) given that god is omnipotent, why would it be impossible for him to create the world in the way science seems to show? clearly he could have done it that way.
How’d I do?
#3. I beleive in God and I believe in the Big Bang and evolution. My personal faith is that your question 8 pretty much sums up what happens. The bible was written in a way that people of the time could understand and shouldn’t be taken literally.
There are those that think it should be taken literally and I feel sorry for them. They block what could give them a greater understanding of the nature of what God really is.
#4 the answer to your question is, he is Satan.
#5 Grog, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:26,27)
So God is somewhere between a protozoa and a chimpanzee.
GigG, the trouble with your interpretation of the bible is that it only makes sense when a lot of excuses are made for it’s errors in logic and sensibility. ANY written abstract can be moulded into whatever you want it to be.
#6 thanks
but your answers definitely help my understanding of the creationist world-view
i still think that reducing the bible to an ordinary historical record demeans the scripture, which in my humble estimation is designed to show how and why to be a good person
but thank you again for taking my questions seriously.
I really believe many here have a crisis of “faith” in their scientific beliefs. Why else when a post comes up about ancient history, evolution, a new fact in biological research, the first thing to come out is a stab at creationists.
Who gives a flying fig when you know you are right. That’s just it though, most aren’t sure and need to do these preemptive strikes and their supposed opponents.
If we evolved from apes how is it that apes are still here wouldn’t they only exist in the fossil record ?
Also how did birds evolve from dinosaurs if all the dinos died in a mass extinction caused by an asteroid hitting earth ?
Why are we not evolving into new species to cope with the changing world?
*after suffering from an imaginary avalanche inside of a cardboard box*
Patrick: Spongebob……i cant…. feel my legs……..you’re gonna have to saw them off….
Spongebob: I can’t….
Patrick: Why!??
Spongebob: cause I ALREADY SAWED OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS!!!!!!!!!!!
Spongebob/Patrick: *hystarical bawling”
And no, that had nothing to do with this post 😀
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
Ev-o-lu-tion!
#11, dwright… it’s called a discussion. As yet I’ve not seen any evidence from the creation camp that supports creationism. For creationism to be valid, the biblical scriptures have to be valid, but when the Bible’s validity is challenged it quickly becomes evident that it can’t be taken literally to be sensical. That in turn makes the whole premise of creationism equally metaphorical as you can’t have it both ways.
What you end up portraying to non believers is a muddle of diversion tactics that attempt unsuccessfully to combine reality with fiction.
#13 descended from aliens:
“If we evolved from apes how is it that apes are still here wouldn’t they only exist in the fossil record ?”
–We did not evolve *from* apes. We are apes. So are gibbons, chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas. All five species (including us) are descended from a single proto-ape species.
“Also how did birds evolve from dinosaurs if all the dinos died in a mass extinction caused by an asteroid hitting earth ?”
–Birds were already around when the asteroid hit. They had already evolved from a single species of dinosaur.
“Why are we not evolving into new species to cope with the changing world?”
–We are, but evolution takes millions of years. To qualify as a new species, a post-human would have to be so different that it couldn’t interbreed with homo sapiens. It would take quite a long time for our genome to be that radically altered. In fact, we don’t even know for certain that humans and chimps can’t interbreed!
Are you ready Kids?
Are you ready?
Ooooooh who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
Porous and yellow and square is he.
If nautical nonsense is something you wish.
Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish.
Spongebob Squarepants,
Spongebob Squarepants,
Spongebob Squarepants,
Spongebob…………
Squarepants!
Aaargh,Aaargh,Aaargh!
Grog, here’s some answers (or clues) for your questions. Since you seem sincere in asking, I’ll attempt sincere answers.
> 1.) are the stars less than 6,000 light years away?
> 2.) was einstein wrong?
> 3.) and if einstein was wrong, then what is the speed of light?
> 4.) how big is the universe?
Since these 4 questions are related, I’ll group them together. There are various scientific ideas that attempt to reconcile a young universe with the millions of light years measurements. Better than my explanations, please see the following link for a number of possible answers.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
> 5.) why is not possible that the big bang was not the moment mentioned in genesis?
One problem is that the order of the evolution dictated by the Big Bang does not agree with the order of Genesis (i.e. stars, sun, mooon created after the earth). So they can’t both be right.
6.) why is not possible that that the days mentioned in genesis are metaphorical?
It is not necessary that they be metaphorical. Also, if the days are metaphorical, then you have the sun, moon, stars created millions of years after plants, etc. In addition, Jesus confirmed the literal days in the New Testament.
7.) if the bible is meant to be taken literally, then why do we need preachers to interpret it for us?
We do not *need* preachers to interpret it. Preachers spread the word for those who do not know of it, or do not read it themselves. Yes they may help, but we as laypeople can understand the Bible ourselves.
8.) given that god is omnipotent, why would it be impossible for him to create the world in the way science seems to show? clearly he could have done it that way.
He certainly could have, but did not. We all have the same facts to look at. If you assume the Bible is true, you see that the facts are often easily explained in light of the Bible truth. If you do not assume the Bible is true, then you must explain those same facts with other unobservable, unproveable ideas (origins occurred in the past, so apart from God, no one observed it. No human obervation, and no way to replicate means that everyone has to make decisions based on bias and assumptions. Everyone, creationists and evolutionists, have a bias.
#19 – Good catch! Thanks for the correction.
#20
In addition, you have to reconcile the Bible against facts that are observable and provable.
Fundamentally, it is a mistake to start with anything along the lines of “If you assume the Bible is true/not true…” In other words, it is a mistake to start with a presumption of truth or falsity with respect to the conclusion. Instead, you should take explanations of the proposed phenomena as stated in the Bible and see if it matches or best explains the observable facts and from that comparison make a determination of truth or falsity. In this regard, the Bible has consistently proven to be entirely lacking in comparison to scientific explanations.
#10 – grog,
i still think that reducing the bible to an ordinary historical record demeans the scripture, which in my humble estimation is designed to show how and why to be a good person
Actually, I have more trouble taking this bit seriously. Do you really think that the purpose of the bible is to teach goodness? I have seen no evidence thereof in the subset of the bible I’ve bothered to read. The 10 commandments in particular do not seem to attempt to do this. Thou shalt not kill is specifically contradicted as soon as one reads the punishment for any breach of the commandments. Further, the tale of Joshua at Jericho is one of the worst offenses against all that could ever be good and decent and moral that I’ve ever heard. How can such a story be reconciled as a story of goodness? Leave nothing alive that breatheth??!!? What did the poor animals do to deserve such treatment? For that matter, from a modern standpoint, can you honestly imagine anything that happened in Jericho that earned the mass slaughter of everyone in the city, including the infants? Yeesh!!
Do you think Bush is related to Patrick Starfish?
#25, Naaa, I think he would be more of a Plankton type guy. Just the one eye, but it sure is shifty.
#26
You’re saying that because the Bushs have an abundant hick family?