Newlamog, Voidbringer 8BRG
Devoid, deathtouch, trample, reach
Whenever a land is tapped for mana, it produces colorless mana instead of any other type. This mana may be used to cast Eldrazi creatures as though it were mana of any color.
11/11
We can be pretty certain, though, that you're asking the wrong specific question. The first life would not have been a cell. Even a prokaryotic cell is a complex and adaptive structure that would have had to evolve over time. The leading suspects for "first life" are much simpler - either protein or RNA chains. Once you've got one of these self-replicating molecules, evolution is pretty much inevitable.
You're right, life would have started even before a cell. And when one of those self-replicating proteins or RNA happened inside a somewhat protective membrane, it would have been much more suited to survive and replicate even more than all the "naked" ones. In that case, they would need to have happened a lot on primordial earth to allow for survival of the fittest. If they still happen today, they are probably rare and quickly eaten by passing microbes.
We can be pretty certain, though, that you're asking the wrong specific question. The first life would not have been a cell. Even a prokaryotic cell is a complex and adaptive structure that would have had to evolve over time. The leading suspects for "first life" are much simpler - either protein or RNA chains. Once you've got one of these self-replicating molecules, evolution is pretty much inevitable.
So like a virus then?
Viruses, as we know them today, are obligate intracellular parasites, meaning they can't self-replicate. However, I wouldn't be terribly surprised (given our current speculation) if the first life-form was replicative RNA in a protein shell.
I believe its called biopsies, the natural process of life arising from inorganic matter. Both inorganic and organic molecules form naturally under the right conditions. Their are many theories of ground zero for these events to occur such as methane vents in earths early oceans to interstellar dust clouds that meteorites passed through and later collided with earth. Regardless of how simplistic early life was it had to survive the harshest conditions imaginable so IMO only makes sense to look there. Tardigrades are also an organism that can survive the vacuum of space one might wonder where they came from.
Abiogenesis, or biopoiesis, yeah. That's what Blinking Spirit linked. I've never heard of tardigrades before... that's really cool!
Thank you all for your comments so far. It's only been 4 hours but I know a lot more now than I did 5 hours ago.
The problem is you also believe the Bible to be fallible. This means you believe that the Bible contains false things, right? So saying, "The Bible is true" as a blanket statement becomes problematic.
Yeah, I can see why you'd have a problem with that. I used the term "true" as a way to state that I'm in a different mindset: I don't think the Bible is perfect, but I don't think it should be ignored except to pick apart, either. It should be studied and treasured, but what God says today is more important than what He said then.
No, Genesis 1 does not describe the plans for creation. It describes how God created the universe. Actually created.
Genesis 1 describes the actual creation in God's mind (and perhaps on paper). Genesis 2 describes the actual creation by God's hands. To take a page from Dumbledore, why would it happening in his mind make it any less real?
Joseph Smith was a false prophet.
However, even if we were in doubt about this, how do you know that God inspired Smith's additions? How do you know he didn't just make them up?
Joseph Smith was definitely not clever enough to create a whole religion from hand waving. He had less education than a middle schooler, yet the religion he started is still going strong nearly 200 years later. I trust his version of Genesis because of his work in other areas (the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to name a few).
Because the only things described in existence were the Earth, light, and darkness.
Just because the Bible doesn't describe something, doesn't mean it wasn't there. As I mentioned in my first post, "The Bible is the work of faithful men to encourage us to come closer to God." If those men didn't know something, they couldn't write about it at all.
Also, the Hebrews didn't know about other planets.
Many good stories have a moral. Why would those stories have to come from the imagination? A true story can teach a principle as easily as a made up one.
Except it's not a true story.
Then all the better for teaching a lesson. And yet, how do you know it's not true? You weren't there. God was. Ask Him.
It means I don't think the Bible is infallible, but I believe its teachings to be morally correct and its history helpful to understanding.
Now, in response to the OP, there are two different creation stories. This would be a problem except, as Walker Boh pointed out, all things existed spiritually before they existed physically.
How does that solve the problem of two different creation stories?
"God essentially worked out the blueprints first (Genesis 1), then made it happen in a different order (Genesis 2)."
One source for this idea (the one I'm familiar with) is in Joseph Smith's translation of Genesis, which states, "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air" (Moses 3:5; this is analogous to Genesis 2:5; italics indicate additions).
If Joseph Smith added verses to Genesis, then how would that constitute a translation of Genesis? That is a rewriting of Genesis.
Not that I care that someone deviated from Scripture in his take on God, but Joseph Smith adding his own verses to Genesis is not a way of resolving the issues of Genesis.
Joseph Smith's "translating" was different from scholarly translations. He did so by first studying the relevant text (Genesis, in this case), then asking God what He originally meant. God inspired Joseph's additions. This only worked for him because he was a prophet with whom God spoke, but that's a completely different topic.
This is why the two creation stories are different but similar, and both present. God essentially worked out the blueprints first (Genesis 1), then made it happen in a different order (Genesis 2).
Nope. This is nothing more than a handwave, a denial of there being obvious contraditions in the Bible when there are. Saying God both did X and did not do X does not logically make sense.
Not to mention what you're saying is absurd. Saying, "Well God made things spiritually but not physically" clearly does not work here because this these are stories of God creating physical things.
Not at all. Have you ever done anything without thinking about it or planning it first? Have you ever created something physically without creating it in your mind beforehand? Does research get funded that has not been thoroughly thought through and presented to the grant committee? Has a house ever been built that did not first have complete blueprints? I tried to build a bridge for physics class once without planning it out. It didn't hold much weight before falling apart. If you want to create something that will last for 7000 or 7 billion years, you're going to plan it out first, and God did. This is what I mean when I say He created things spiritually before physically. He planned each detail, of where earth would need to be to orbit the sun just right, of the interactions between land and sea, of plant life and animal life.
Now the OP also claims that these stories are at odds with scientific understanding, with the biggest offense being that the creation claims to have occurred in a matter of days. It has also been brought up that "days" might not refer to the 24-hour periods we call days, but then why shouldn't it? You may notice from the above quote that in Joseph Smith's translation, the story is told from God's perspective to His prophet, Moses. Thus I conclude: God was not referring to our 24 hour days, but a "day" from His planet. Sure, He was over here building the earth, but He was still referring to a different amount of time than what He assigned here. How long is a day on God's planet? A thousand of our years? A billion? Nobody knows. Time is also irrelevant to God, He being an Eternal Being, but He condescends to our need to know times.
Ok, two things:
A. A day is described in Genesis as a Hebrew day, that is to say, from the time of sundown to the next sundown. On Earth.
B. Why would God be living on another planet? Is this that Mormon space alien God nonsense?
A. Who says it was on earth? Hebrews got their reckoning of time (if the Bible is to be believed) from God. Who would have used it from His source.
B. Yes, you could say it's "Mormon space alien God nonsense." And yet, why would God be living on this planet? It didn't even exist until He created it. Assuming He came from somewhere, why not another planet?
It has also been claimed that the creation story is a metaphor instead of a literal, historical account. I do believe it to be an essentially historical account, but it is simultaneously a metaphor.
That makes no sense.
Many good stories have a moral. Why would those stories have to come from the imagination? A true story can teach a principle as easily as a made up one.
People who believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God are wrong. That being said, I believe the Bible to be true. The Bible is not infallible; God is infallible. The Bible is the work of faithful men to encourage us to come closer to God. Now, in response to the OP, there are two different creation stories. This would be a problem except, as Walker Boh pointed out, all things existed spiritually before they existed physically. One source for this idea (the one I'm familiar with) is in Joseph Smith's translation of Genesis, which states, "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air" (Moses 3:5; this is analogous to Genesis 2:5; italics indicate additions).
This is why the two creation stories are different but similar, and both present. God essentially worked out the blueprints first (Genesis 1), then made it happen in a different order (Genesis 2). Now the OP also claims that these stories are at odds with scientific understanding, with the biggest offense being that the creation claims to have occurred in a matter of days. It has also been brought up that "days" might not refer to the 24-hour periods we call days, but then why shouldn't it? You may notice from the above quote that in Joseph Smith's translation, the story is told from God's perspective to His prophet, Moses. Thus I conclude: God was not referring to our 24 hour days, but a "day" from His planet. Sure, He was over here building the earth, but He was still referring to a different amount of time than what He assigned here. How long is a day on God's planet? A thousand of our years? A billion? Nobody knows. Time is also irrelevant to God, He being an Eternal Being, but He condescends to our need to know times.
It has also been claimed that the creation story is a metaphor instead of a literal, historical account. I do believe it to be an essentially historical account, but it is simultaneously a metaphor. God worked for six days, doing the hardest labor we can conceive. And then on the seventh day, He rested. This is an example of what we should do: Work hard for six days of the week, and then spend the seventh resting and contemplating His mysteries. It is far healthier for us to take a regular break than to work nonstop.
I have wondered for a long time, how did life on earth start? The central dogma of biology is that a living cell arises from a living cell... so how did the first one happen? I recall one experiment where somebody basically created lots of lightning in a small ocean-like system and ended up creating amino acids, but that's still a far cry from life as we know it. I personally believe that God created all life, but I also suspect that God usually works through scientific means. What are your thoughts and knowledge on this?
Also, in debating this topic, EVOLUTION has no place here. I don't care how the first cell grew up and differentiated and became all the species; I want to know what led up to the first cell existing and replicating.
Bolas saw Ugin as a rival, before the Mending. Now, Ugin has been asleep for a thousand years. His body and magic would both have atrophied significantly. He also has no experience with his post-Mending powers. In addition to post-Mending practice, Bolas absorbed Alara's Maelstrom. While Ugin may still be powerful, Bolas is far more so.
And then there's what could be gained by Ugin's living again. Bolas has moved, unchallenged, among the planes for a millennium. He's learned things in his desire to regain his pre-Mending power, as has Ob Nixilis, that the key to regaining that power may involve sacrifice. If Bolas could channel Ugin's power into himself somehow, he might be able to regain ultimate power.
Thus I conclude the voice in Vol's head was never Ugin. It has always been Bolas. Bolas guided Vol to Ugin's Nexus, back in time. Vol "saved" Ugin from his first, almost meaningless death. Now Bolas is in Ugin's mind, and will guide him to make a necessary sacrifice that Bolas will channel into himself, rather than the cause to which Ugin thinks he is giving himself.
Considering the flavor text on the reprint of Tormenting Voice in DTK, and Bolas' part in the Eldrazi's release, I doubt Ugin has selfish plans for the Eldrazi. On the contrary, I think Ugin's revival may have been part of Bolas' plan.
As a matter of curiosity, what's the flavor of the Commander being able to go to the command zone rather than dying? "*Hero's Downfall* Death's cold hoof crushes me... return me to the command tent, I'll recover there." I feel like understanding the flavor of that interaction will make the tuck issue easier to understand.
One thought I had in relation to this was The Batman (or Zorro or Mandalore). The Commander is not so much an individual* as it is an idea, a Symbol for the rest of the deck to rally behind. When the current individual is destroyed, exiled, tucked or bounced, the Symbol returns to the command zone, waiting for a new individual to take up the mantle and be the Commander.
*Despite, of course, being an individual as defined by Magic: a Legendary Creature (or Planeswalker).
The only possible way for Kiora to have the same ultimate is if they reprint the Crashing Wave. There would be nothing wrong with that, but it would fail to be splashy.
Mirror Mockery, mostly because I want to try it in my Allies commander deck and I draft to expand my collection. Also, thanks to whoever pointed out the interaction with exploit!
Jace19, Oh yeah, I do remember that. Thanks. I'd still like a source on Em and Ula leaving Zendikar though.
As far as actual predictions for BFZ, the landfall + cost idea sounds reasonable and would likely exclude this thought I had: 4U
General Smartypants
Merfolk Soldier Ally
Whenever an Ally you control attacks, you may pay 1U. If you do, draw a card.
3/3
My Commander Progenitus Allies deck would be happy to see Allies, not with ETB effects, but with other triggered and costed effects. Though ETB effects are also excellent.
Devoid, deathtouch, trample, reach
Whenever a land is tapped for mana, it produces colorless mana instead of any other type. This mana may be used to cast Eldrazi creatures as though it were mana of any color.
11/11
Viruses, as we know them today, are obligate intracellular parasites, meaning they can't self-replicate. However, I wouldn't be terribly surprised (given our current speculation) if the first life-form was replicative RNA in a protein shell.
Abiogenesis, or biopoiesis, yeah. That's what Blinking Spirit linked. I've never heard of tardigrades before... that's really cool!
Thank you all for your comments so far. It's only been 4 hours but I know a lot more now than I did 5 hours ago.
Genesis 1 describes the actual creation in God's mind (and perhaps on paper). Genesis 2 describes the actual creation by God's hands. To take a page from Dumbledore, why would it happening in his mind make it any less real?
Joseph Smith was definitely not clever enough to create a whole religion from hand waving. He had less education than a middle schooler, yet the religion he started is still going strong nearly 200 years later. I trust his version of Genesis because of his work in other areas (the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to name a few).
Just because the Bible doesn't describe something, doesn't mean it wasn't there. As I mentioned in my first post, "The Bible is the work of faithful men to encourage us to come closer to God." If those men didn't know something, they couldn't write about it at all.
They did if God told them, as in this chapter.
Then all the better for teaching a lesson. And yet, how do you know it's not true? You weren't there. God was. Ask Him.
It means I don't think the Bible is infallible, but I believe its teachings to be morally correct and its history helpful to understanding.
"God essentially worked out the blueprints first (Genesis 1), then made it happen in a different order (Genesis 2)."
Joseph Smith's "translating" was different from scholarly translations. He did so by first studying the relevant text (Genesis, in this case), then asking God what He originally meant. God inspired Joseph's additions. This only worked for him because he was a prophet with whom God spoke, but that's a completely different topic.
Not at all. Have you ever done anything without thinking about it or planning it first? Have you ever created something physically without creating it in your mind beforehand? Does research get funded that has not been thoroughly thought through and presented to the grant committee? Has a house ever been built that did not first have complete blueprints? I tried to build a bridge for physics class once without planning it out. It didn't hold much weight before falling apart. If you want to create something that will last for 7000 or 7 billion years, you're going to plan it out first, and God did. This is what I mean when I say He created things spiritually before physically. He planned each detail, of where earth would need to be to orbit the sun just right, of the interactions between land and sea, of plant life and animal life.
A. Who says it was on earth? Hebrews got their reckoning of time (if the Bible is to be believed) from God. Who would have used it from His source.
B. Yes, you could say it's "Mormon space alien God nonsense." And yet, why would God be living on this planet? It didn't even exist until He created it. Assuming He came from somewhere, why not another planet?
Many good stories have a moral. Why would those stories have to come from the imagination? A true story can teach a principle as easily as a made up one.
This is why the two creation stories are different but similar, and both present. God essentially worked out the blueprints first (Genesis 1), then made it happen in a different order (Genesis 2). Now the OP also claims that these stories are at odds with scientific understanding, with the biggest offense being that the creation claims to have occurred in a matter of days. It has also been brought up that "days" might not refer to the 24-hour periods we call days, but then why shouldn't it? You may notice from the above quote that in Joseph Smith's translation, the story is told from God's perspective to His prophet, Moses. Thus I conclude: God was not referring to our 24 hour days, but a "day" from His planet. Sure, He was over here building the earth, but He was still referring to a different amount of time than what He assigned here. How long is a day on God's planet? A thousand of our years? A billion? Nobody knows. Time is also irrelevant to God, He being an Eternal Being, but He condescends to our need to know times.
It has also been claimed that the creation story is a metaphor instead of a literal, historical account. I do believe it to be an essentially historical account, but it is simultaneously a metaphor. God worked for six days, doing the hardest labor we can conceive. And then on the seventh day, He rested. This is an example of what we should do: Work hard for six days of the week, and then spend the seventh resting and contemplating His mysteries. It is far healthier for us to take a regular break than to work nonstop.
Also, in debating this topic, EVOLUTION has no place here. I don't care how the first cell grew up and differentiated and became all the species; I want to know what led up to the first cell existing and replicating.
And then there's what could be gained by Ugin's living again. Bolas has moved, unchallenged, among the planes for a millennium. He's learned things in his desire to regain his pre-Mending power, as has Ob Nixilis, that the key to regaining that power may involve sacrifice. If Bolas could channel Ugin's power into himself somehow, he might be able to regain ultimate power.
Thus I conclude the voice in Vol's head was never Ugin. It has always been Bolas. Bolas guided Vol to Ugin's Nexus, back in time. Vol "saved" Ugin from his first, almost meaningless death. Now Bolas is in Ugin's mind, and will guide him to make a necessary sacrifice that Bolas will channel into himself, rather than the cause to which Ugin thinks he is giving himself.
One thought I had in relation to this was The Batman (or Zorro or Mandalore). The Commander is not so much an individual* as it is an idea, a Symbol for the rest of the deck to rally behind. When the current individual is destroyed, exiled, tucked or bounced, the Symbol returns to the command zone, waiting for a new individual to take up the mantle and be the Commander.
*Despite, of course, being an individual as defined by Magic: a Legendary Creature (or Planeswalker).
Zulzanet, we will certainly see Ob on Zendikar. At the end of this article http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/ur/dreams-damned-2014-08-06 he implies that he knows how to become a Planeswalker again. Thus we assume he'll re-spark, likely in Sweat.
As far as actual predictions for BFZ, the landfall + cost idea sounds reasonable and would likely exclude this thought I had:
4U
General Smartypants
Merfolk Soldier Ally
Whenever an Ally you control attacks, you may pay 1U. If you do, draw a card.
3/3
My Commander Progenitus Allies deck would be happy to see Allies, not with ETB effects, but with other triggered and costed effects. Though ETB effects are also excellent.