Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Questions for both sides...

Expand Messages
  • spryte42@hotmail.com
    Hi there, new to the group, just read your 56 posts. I have questions for both sides. For the creationists... Which creation story are you using? I presume it
    Message 1 of 4 , May 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi there, new to the group, just read your 56 posts.
      I have questions for both sides.

      For the creationists...
      Which creation story are you using? I presume it is the genesis one.
      Are you aware that that mostly comes from Babylonian creation myth?
      Including the flood and the great beasts (behemoth and leviathin) as
      well as sundry other snippets.
      If this is the case (Robert Graves is a good source, but I can't
      recall the title) and Babylonian myth predates Jewish (another
      interesting snippet is that Abraham probably came from Babylon,
      bringing his "house god" and associated creation stories), then which
      one should we be referring to?
      After all, it's a little anglocentric to just refer to OUR creation
      myths, don't you think?

      For the evolutionists...
      Why are we still putting forward the "mankind as the pinnacle of
      evolution" stuff? There are stiil more bacteria in the world (tonnage
      wise)than anything else, so all the age of amphibians, and age of
      dinosaurs etc.. have all been a bit of a fib. It's always been the
      age of amoeba, surely?

      Now, I realise that neither of those things were really questions,
      they were just some information with a lot of question marks on the
      end, but it should get you going again.

      Hugs
      Spryte
    • Daniel MacArthur
      ... Age of bacteria, actually (amoebae are quite different to bacteria). Any microbiologist would agree with you wholeheartedly. The only reason that so much
      Message 2 of 4 , May 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Spryte:

        > For the evolutionists...
        > Why are we still putting forward the "mankind as the pinnacle of
        > evolution" stuff? There are stiil more bacteria in the world (tonnage
        > wise)than anything else, so all the age of amphibians, and age of
        > dinosaurs etc.. have all been a bit of a fib. It's always been the
        > age of amoeba, surely?

        Age of bacteria, actually (amoebae are quite different to bacteria).
        Any microbiologist would agree with you wholeheartedly. The only reason
        that so much emphasis is placed on larger organisms is because they are
        on a scale close to our own (you don't need fiddly and expensive
        microscopes to study buffaloes).

        The notion of human beings as the pinnacle of evolution was abandoned
        by scientists a long time ago. It is still endorsed (often purely
        unconsciously) by laymen and even some academics who should know
        better, but this is because of the inherent arrogance of humans and not
        due to any scientific merit of the idea. In terms of total biomass, as
        you correctly pointed out, many bacterial species trump Homo sapiens
        and every other eukaryotic species.


        Daniel.

        _____________________________________________________________________________
        http://store.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Store
        - It's time you had your business online!
      • spryte42@hotmail.com
        ... Age of Amoeba has such sweet alliteration! Surely we are allowed a little style over content Hugs Spryte
        Message 3 of 4 , May 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          > > age of amoeba, surely?
          >
          > Age of bacteria, actually (amoebae are quite different to bacteria).

          Age of Amoeba has such sweet alliteration! Surely we are allowed a
          little style over content <grin>

          Hugs
          Spryte
        • Daniel MacArthur
          ... True, but best of all is to have both. Age of Archaea? (Not strictly accurate but close enough.) Period of Prokaryotes? (Uglier but a little more
          Message 4 of 4 , May 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- spryte42@... wrote: >
            > > > age of amoeba, surely?
            > >
            > > Age of bacteria, actually (amoebae are quite different to
            > bacteria).
            >
            > Age of Amoeba has such sweet alliteration! Surely we are allowed a
            > little style over content <grin>

            True, but best of all is to have both.

            Age of Archaea? (Not strictly accurate but close enough.)

            Period of Prokaryotes? (Uglier but a little more scientific.)

            Stage of Salmonella, Spirillum, Serratia, Shigella and Staphylococcus?
            (For the more medically-minded microbiological minstrel.)

            And so on...


            Daniel.

            _____________________________________________________________________________
            http://store.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Store
            - It's time you had your business online!
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.