Roger - it's my pleasure - I enjoy discussion, so it's no effort. maybe i should blog - never thought anyone would be interested to read. All I've got is Facebook - just to keep a copy of what I read and write.

Report this

Meme-Man, thanks for the library of info you have referred me to. Clearly it will take some time to research all this. It certainly is an interesting topic to study from both points of view. BTW last night I also struggled to get my post though. It seems IOL knock off early on a friday. Then I need to ask if you are familiar with the works of inmate Kent Hovind? He had a series of DVD material covering origins from a Biblical view. Meme-man, thanks for your time, and info given. Much appreciated. Do you have a blog we can follow?

Report this

IOL - your article has stimulated great dialogue - thank you. Might I add one last analogy that is germane, and I believe readers will appreciate: The stretch of time for evolution to act on species is infinitely vaster than laymen appreciate. Here's another example - hold hands with your mother - and she holds hands with her mother, and she with her mother. Each of you occupies about 1m in the line you're creating. Start your line at the sea shore on Camps Bay Beach's shoreline with your feet just wet - facing a modern chimp - also holding hands with it's mother's linage back to antiquity. The lines of your respective direct ancestors facing one another, holding hands will reach away from you - up, over the Nek, and out, say, the N2. How long before the lines merge and a single mother is holding hands with two offspring whose genetic lines were destined to become "us" and "them"? Well - at 20 years per generation (5 generations per century) and 1m per generation: start to walk down the line and, before the first member of your family is standing on the grass adjacent to Victoria Road - you have passed a peer with Jesus, 2,000 years ago. You still have a long walk ahead of you though - about 350km - your junction point is somewhere well beyond Swellendam and almost in Mossel Bay. Do the maths yourself: 350,000 generations (x 20 years = 7-million years of evolution to the junction) at 1m per generation = 350km... and looking back from Albertinia - you'll appreciate that the bible's version of 6,000 years is only (60 x 5) 300 generations - or 300m on our scale. You passed Jesus' peer as you crossed the road from the sea - and you're barely off level ground in Camps Bay before you pass "Adam and Eve". Put another way 100 generations (to Jesus) divided by 350,000 - is 0,028% of the way back to that evolutionary branch. Point made: Time is vast and we are limited in our 'emotional' thinking.

Report this

Morning again: Roger@6.56pm - The origin earth is 4,6 billion years old. Life goes back to around 3.9 billion years ago - call it 4. The theory of panspermia suggests extraterrestrial microbial life arose (over an even longer time period) elsewhere and took hold on earth. Regardless - defining 'life' at the microbial level is more complicated than it may seem - what is life? Scientists venture that it is the ability to self replicate with heritable features passed on (fire can self replicate, but it doesn't pass on inherited features). Pretty simple stuff can do that; natural building blocks of life; computer models and observation show that simple amino acids and enzymes to catalyze proteins can naturally occur given enough time and an energy source (sun, lightening, etc) to jostle molecules into endless combinations. From amino acids to protein strings to RNA and DNA; given sufficient time; there is a probability of occurrence that is definable. From mere life to consciousness is another slow but definable process that this comments section won't allow for.

Report this

Roger - you'll enjoy this: http:www.youtube.comwatch?v=CEtnyx0Yo9I and http:en.wikipedia.orgwikiThe_Ancestor's_Tale

Report this

Roger@6.56pm - I've answered in 3 submissions; so far, not one listed... Why, IOL? Good thing I keep a Meme Man Facebook copy of everything I write and links back to articles: I try again later

Report this

Roger@6.56 - Thank you for your wishes for enjoying the weekend - yes; this is how I enjoy my time - in dialogue and passing on information I've been fortunate enough to find. Following on my 2 previous responses to your questions; and answering your final question about benefits to mankind for understanding origins; please allow me to quote Neil Tyson, an astrophysicist, on the matter. He was being taken to task about the usefulness of physics in general, and this was his answer: "The last time you walked into a hospital, what were those machines with the onoff switches that can investigate the condition of your body without cutting you open? Those would be the X-ray machines, the MRI, and ultrasound. And every single one of them exists based on the principles of physics, discovered by a physicist who had no particular interest in medicine. Period. True revolutionary advances in our understanding of the natural world issue from the cross-pollination of disciplines. And the problems posed in the investigation of the universe attract people who have the smarts, the ambition, and the perseverance to make the discoveries that will transform the way we live." If I may I'll also share his response about taxpayer money "wasted" on space exploration (it relates to exploratory expenditure in general within public perception): "I would just ask you: How much do you think we’re spending up there? Here’s your tax dollar. How much? Ten cents on the dollar? Five cents? The answer is one half of one cent. That funds the space stations, the space shuttles, all the NASA centers, all the launches, the Hubble Space Telescope, the rovers on Mars. All of it. Half a penny. “So the question isn’t, Why are we spending money up there and not down here? The question is, If we pumped that half a cent back into the 99.5 percent of the budget, would the country be fundamentally different in the ways you want? Do you believe that?"

Report this

Morning Roger@6.56pm - I hope IOL publishes my answer to you from last night and recommendation to @DoctorKarl on twitter for a Polonium answer; and book "Climbing mount improbable" by Dawkins. I wanted to add to my answer: The origin earth is 4,6 billion years old. Life goes back to around 3.9 billion years ago - call it 4. The theory of panspermia suggests extraterrestrial microbial life arose (over an even longer time period) elsewhere and took hold on earth. Regardless - defining 'life' at the microbial level is more complicated than it may seem - what is life? Scientists venture that it is the ability to self replicate with heritable features passed on (fire can self replicate, but it doesn't pass on inherited features). Pretty simple stuff can do that; natural building blocks of life; computer models and observation show that simple amino acids and enzymes to catalyze proteins can naturally occur given enough time and an energy source (sun, lightening, etc) to jostle molecules into endless combinations. From amino acids to protein strings to RNA and DNA; given sufficient time; there is a probability of occurrence that is definable. From mere life to consciousness is another slow but definable process that this comments section won't allow for. Suffice is it to say that 4-billion years (especially when we have been trained to think on biblical timescales of 6,000 years) is an awfully long time. How long? Well - stretch out your arms either side of you - at your left fingernail the earth formed. At your right fingertip is "now". At the crease on your left wrist the first microbes formed - microbes had the earth to themselves all the way across your chest to the crease of your right wrist when the first multi0-cellular life (life you could actually see with the naked eye) arose. The dinosaurs got their start about where your right fingers bed from your hands; and then they disappear at the last joint of your finger. Now - take a damp cloth and wipe the tips if your right finger.... you have just removed dirt and dead skin - that thickness removed represents 2,000 years - all history and people back to and including jesus. Take a nail file and give it one pull across your nail - and the family of modern humans is gone. The stretch of time for evolution to act on species is infinitely vaster than laymen appreciate.

Report this

Meme Man Roger@6.56pm - Actually - yes... Re Polonium; I can help with a referral - write to Doctor Karl on Twitter: http:twitter.comDoctorKarl - and he will answer your question. Look up and subscribe to his podcasts generally - covers fascinating stuff. To understand ratcheting of life from non-life, read "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins (or his "Greatest Show on Earth"). I think the 'spontaneous' development of life mustn't be considered as a distinct boundary and clear black-white line, but rather a very prolonged assimilation of complexity over time - an imperceptibly gradual hill rather than a cliff - if you get my analogy.

Report this

Roger@6.56pm - Actually - yes... Re Polonium; I can help with a referral - write to Doctor Karl on Twitter: http:twitter.comDoctorKarl - and he will answer your question. Look up and subscribe to his podcasts generally - fascinating stuff. To understand ratcheting of life from non-life, read "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins (or "Greatest Show on Earth"). I think the 'spontaneous' development of life mustn't be considered as a distinct boundary and clear black-white line, but rather a very prolonged assimilation of complexity over time - an imperceptibly gradual hill rather than a cliff - if you get my analogy.

Report this

Thanks Meme-Man. Do you have any comments on the statement of spontaneous life from non-life, and or what benefits the science of origins brings to mankind. You have already indicated that you do not have much to offer on the Polonium 218 conundrum. Do you have someone that you could refer me to on this?I would be most appreciative. It is now time to enjoy the weekend.

Report this

Roger@5.06pm - You make a good point about not being absolute about god's non-existence. In truth then; and even Richard Dawkins provides odds something like this; we should say that god 99.999999% does not exist. Why such long odds? Well - many reasons; the most obvious being that 1) Can we agree that it takes complexity to create complexity. I mean - you wouldn't expect god to be less complex than, say, a worm, a reptile... or us... you'd expect him or her to be more complex than the thing he is to create. Can we agree on that? 2) Yet, creationist insist that god must exist because all the complexity cannot come into existence without intelligence. You do see the conundrum of that case? So - by saying that god made it all, you are still left with answering where god came from in the first place - you are not solving a problem, you are merely deferring it. You can't say that we can't ask that question of where god came from or that he's always been there... Because those aren't solutions.

Report this

Meme-Man, I concur that scientists should not talk in absolutes. Yet throughout this discussion, and others that I have followed, I sense that the existance of a God is absolutely denied by scientists The problem that I struggle with regarding the evolutionist view, is that of origins. According to this model, spontaneous life could only have sprung up from non-life. Another thought is what benefit this science of origins brings to mankind. And then my final concern would bring into question the accuracy of the dating system, bearing in mind the presence of Polonium 218 halos in the granite. Without clear answers to these questions, I can understand why one would be more inclined to lean toward the model of a creator God, as outlined in the Holy Bible. Thank you for your time

Report this

I thought some of the commentators on this string might find this interesting: "Why Atheism Will Replace Religion" www.psychologytoday.comblogthe-human-beast201005why-atheism-will-replace-religion Interesting extracts: "data shows that the more educated countries have higher levels of non belief and there are strong correlations between atheism and intelligence... Atheists are more likely to be college-educated people who live in cities and they are highly concentrated in the social democracies of Europe. Atheism thus blossoms amid affluence where most people feel economically secure. In modern societies, when people experience psychological difficulties they turn to their doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. They want a scientific fix and prefer the real psychotropic medicines dished out by physicians to the metaphorical opiates offered by religion. "

Report this

Roger@07.38pm - Shane is well versed and always stays on-topic; I much appreciate debate with him. I have no problem with people who are behind in their understanding and consequently still thinking that evolution is still only a theory; that is what they're being told by (mainly) religious influencers, and they are merely repeating it without malice. I use the word "creation myth" with purpose - creationism has infused itself into culture and indoctrinated itself into the minds of every toddler that ever walked to such an extent that it is horrifyingly easy for people to divorce the fiction that is creation from the facts that debunk it; and "myth" is the most efficient word to use that jolts people to arrive at the realization that creation is not anywhere close to fact. And... I do agree with you - whereas I believe that scientists should never talk in absolutes certainties on matters of recent discovery, this article does have little in the way of substance.

Report this

Meme-Man and Shane, well-done on keeping your discussion civil and respectful for the most part. I say for the most part, as I do see every now and then a dig at each other. It is far better to follow the facts, than read about the "creation myth", or "evolution being just a theory". Both in the creationist camp, and that of the evolutionists we find falsehood, and falsification. The Holy Bible warns of false preachers and false scientists. In both cases the teachings need to be tested, and a decision made whether to accept or reject. In my opinion, this article under discussion does not meet the test of a scientific document. When I read an article that says, scientists believe, think, perhaps, may be, suspect, etc. then it can only be labeled as conjecture. Thank you for an intersting discussion

Report this

Anonymous@3.47pm... IOL... once again, not allowing us to comment under a password protected subscriber pen-name, there is no way to distinguish one default "Anonymous" from the next - Anon... I must therefore presume that, in the absence of you taking the time to give a distinguishing name, you are one and the same nutbag Anonymous who regularly opens his or her mouth on this comments line only to change feet. So - yes - my presumption based on your comment was that you are a creationist. For the record, Darwin's biography is of no interest to me - only the thought pattern that he pioneered carries weight in my book. I really can't comment and have no opinion on why the racial or social or gender mix of evolutionists may or may not be skewed in this or that direction. Do you care to speculate? I'm also quite unaware of any evolutionist who is "prepared to kill" for his or her faith in the process; that is entirely a new concept to me and at odds with the science of it.

Report this

@Meme Please read Roger's post my friend, he says just accept and believe, that is what I was quoting. Surely your statement of analysing facts and deciding for yourself is flawed, since you asume again my friend that you are talking to a religious bigot and not a data and statistical analyst that I am. Maybe get you head out of Darwin's biography and google statistical methodology. You are proving that if someone analyse all the "free" data and come to a different conclusion, he must either be a creationist, christian or what is your name for it toilet bowl bottom feeder. I have another simple question for you. How many African or Black Evolutionary Scientist are there in the world or have they not evolved enough to whiteness as per Darwin and his cronies

Report this

People the big question here is: Will this discovery make life better? Your anwer - NO! It might as well have been an appendix!

Report this

Shane... sorry... I' tried to continue answering your question from 11am yesterday - and IOL are up to their old tricks of not bothering to list it... so I just listed it to my own FB... sigh.

Report this