sie ist schon ein wenig schräg, die Website www.sangraal.com, wo wir unten eingepasteten Text herhaben, doch beinhält der Excerpt nebst Amüsantem zwei uns relevant erscheinende Fragen:
- wie sind, entsprechend der Evolutionstheorie, Tiere und also auch Menschen aus Pfanzen entstanden
- und ist es tatsächlich sinnvoll wenn die ganze Welt formal nach C02-Reduktion strebt, die Anderen, weitaus schädlicheren Treibhausgase, die Feinstaubbelastung und hauptsächlich das Problem der eklatanten Unterschiede menschlicher Freiheiten jedoch gar nicht gelöst werden sollen.
.. second fallacy was the gap that separates vegetable and animal life. 'These are necessarily the converse of each other, the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. Only in reproduction or decay does the plant simulate the action of the animal, and the animal never in its simplest forms assumes the functions of the plant. This gap can, I believe, be filled up only by an appeal to our ignorance.' And thus it remains today. If life did evolve as Darwinists claim, it would have had to bridge the gap between plant and animal life at least once, and more likely innumerable times. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, science is again batting zero.
OW: What’s the big problem? If Objection # 1 has any validity at all, that is, if it’s so patently impossible for life to spontaneously arise, why bother with this second objection? If probability CAN jump The Void, it can surely jump the plant/animal boundary; if it CAN’T jump The Void, naturally evolved plants and animals don’t exist, and so... eh, what was the question?
If probability CAN jump The Void, then I can envision how animal life arose from rotting plant matter. Indeed, it takes bacteria to decompose vegetable matter. Until bacteria arrived, the world’s oceans must have been gotten rank and thick. My understanding of current terran ecology is that it is based upon the Carbon Cycle. Core to the Carbon Cycle is that plants liberate oxygen from carbon dioxide, and animals recombine oxygen with carbon.
I forget which way is which in the following, and my Encycopaedia’s Britannica, both 1947 and 1974, are being stubborn about helping me locate their articles on procaryotes and eucaryotes (which is where this issue resides in the evolutionary lore), but I DO know that the first Big Extinction on Earth as displayed in the fossil record is the one that allowed animals to develop. Seems those early plants were so good at turning CO2 into O(xygen) that they turned themselves out of a living – actually, they burned themselves out, for while they could make oxygen, they could not survive its buildup. They got oxidized. Those that survived did so through two possible methods: first, they developed thicker oxygen resistant skin, second, a new sort of critter had to develop which took oxygen into itself as part of its livelihood, in other words, animals, oxygen breathers, critters that ‘oxidize and expend’. One of the key things they would expend would be CO2, which plants, as we know, breathe in order to make sugar when subjected to sunlight. Considering that plants with thicker skin probably have a harder time getting CO2 through their new skin, greater CO2 availability would be a very good thing.
2008-03-09 | achtphasen | 23:57:20 | 
| comment
