Evolution is the only theologically plausible answer

[Jose Fly]

I'm with you on that. It was just a friendly dig, since getting an honest, well-thought out answer doesn't seem like a likely outcome from some sources.

I've had great success with questioning them too and watching the logical fallacies fly when they bother to answer at all.

It amazes me what people that claim to be morally superior will do in such situations.

Creationist: "Chalk and shale deposits were laid down during the flood"

Us: How does that work? Please explain.

Creationist:

 

[gnostic]

Denying all common sense reasoning isn't science. It's wishful thinking.
The complexity of life is so far beyond anything that can happen by accident.

Do you really want to know what is really wishful thinking and denying common sense?

Believing in Genesis 2:7, in which a living and fully-grown human male can be created from non-living dust or soil:

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

7 the LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.

The “dust of the ground” or “dust of the earth”, I would have to assume the passages are referring to soil, since the following verses stated the garden of Eden being created (Genesis 2:8-9).

No matter how you interpret verse 2:7, be it literal or symbolic (or metaphoric or allegoric), non-living soil cannot transform into living human being, without magic or supernatural, because CELLS of a human body are not made of soil.

If you have ever studied the molecular structures of cells and the molecular structures of soil, they are not the same things, and it would be impossible be transformed soil into blood, bones and tissues.

In general, there are three types of soils:

1. clay soil
2. silt soil
3. sandy soil

I am not going to talk about all the subtypes of each of these 3 types of soil.

What I will say, that the main chemical or molecular ingredients of these soils are they come from the minerals of rocks that have broken away from the rocks through processes of weathering (eg wind, rain, water flows (eg streams, rivers, waves, water pressures, etc), ice (hail or glaciers), etc, all chipping away at the rocks (eg igneous rocks, sedimentary rocks, etc).

These types of soils, are made from these rock minerals, of which there are 3 main types of silicates:

1. mica (for clay minerals, Al2Si2O5(OH)4; there are many types of mica, so I won’t going into those)
2. feldspar
   • (KAlSi3O8,
   • NaAlSi3O8,
   • CaAl2Si2O8)
3. quartz (SiO4)

I am not going to go on about the subtypes of each type of minerals, because that would over-complicate already complicated explanation I am giving.

Let’s just say, that -

1. clay are made from mica or (edit) feldspar,
2. silt from either feldspar or quartz,
3. sand from quartz.

Mica is more flaky type of silicate than the grainy feldspar and even more grainy quartz.

So each of types of types of soil, are made from silicate minerals, and silicates are inorganic matters, not organic.

The points of going through these types of soils and types of silicate minerals, is that there are no silicate minerals of any types found in any of many different types of cells.

If the first human were made from soil, you would expect to find one of these silicate minerals being the makeup of cells, or of tissues, bones, blood, etc.

Instead the cells are made from 3 essential biological (or organic) macromolecules:

1. proteins (which are made of chain of amino acids)
2. nucleic acids (eg DNA, RNA), which are chains or sequences of nucleotide, which are made of number of different organic compounds or molecules,
3. carbohydrates, which there are of many types.

None of these biological macromolecules within any cells, have any of the silicate minerals.

If you understood what said here, you would understand why I say the creation of Adam from soil (or “dust of the ground”), is nothing than ludicrous myth, and have no basis in natural reality, because you cannot turn any of silicate into proteins or nucleic acids (eg DNA) or carbohydrates.

The Hebrew myth of human being created from soil, eg clay, come from other myths (Sumerian Enki and Ninhursag, or the Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis or Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Egyptian myths of Atum or Re, or of Khnum the potter god). So the Genesis (especially 2:7), is based on Mesopotamian creation myth, where humans were made from clay, myths that I am sure that Jews borrowed and adapted, while they were living in Babylon during the 6th century BCE.

It is Genesis Creation of Adam that are wishful thinking, with no common sense, and certainly no science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you really want to know what is really wishful thinking and denying common sense?

Believing in Genesis 2:7, in which a living and fully-grown human male can be created from non-living dust or soil:

​

The “dust of the ground” or “dust of the earth”, I would have to assume the passages are referring to soil, since the following verses stated the garden of Eden being created (Genesis 2:8-9).

No matter how you interpret verse 2:7, be it literal or symbolic (or metaphoric or allegoric), non-living soil cannot transform into living human being, without magic or supernatural, because CELLS of a human body are not made of soil.

If you have ever studied the molecular structures of cells and the molecular structures of soil, they are not the same things, and it would be impossible be transformed soil into blood, bones and tissues.

In general, there are three types of soils:

1. clay soil
2. silt soil
3. sandy soil

I am not going to talk about all the subtypes of each of these 3 types of soil.

What I will say, that the main chemical or molecular ingredients of these soils are they come from the minerals of rocks that have broken away from the rocks through processes of weathering (eg wind, rain, water flows (eg streams, rivers, waves, water pressures, etc), ice (hail or glaciers), etc, all chipping away at the rocks (eg igneous rocks, sedimentary rocks, etc).

These types of soils, are made from these rock minerals, of which there are 3 main types of silicates:

1. mica (for clay minerals, Al2Si2O5(OH)4; there are many types of mica, so I won’t going into those)
2. feldspar
   • (KAlSi3O8,
   • NaAlSi3O8,
   • CaAl2Si2O8)
3. quartz (SiO4)

I am not going to go on about the subtypes of each type of minerals, because that would over-complicate already complicated explanation I am giving.

Let’s just say, that -

1. clay are made from mica,
2. silt from either feldspar or quartz,
3. sand from quartz.

Mica is more flaky type of silicate than the grainy feldspar and even more grainy quartz.

So each of types of types of soil, are made from silicate minerals, and silicates are inorganic matters, not organic.

The points of going through these types of soils and types of silicate minerals, is that there are no silicate minerals of any types found in any of many different types of cells.

If the first human were made from soil, you would expect to find one of these silicate minerals being the makeup of cells, or of tissues, bones, blood, etc.

Instead the cells are made from 3 essential biological (or organic) macromolecules:

1. proteins (which are made of chain of amino acids)
2. nucleic acids (eg DNA, RNA), which are chains or sequences of nucleotide, which are made of number of different organic compounds or molecules,
3. carbohydrates, which there are of many types.

None of these biological macromolecules within any cells, have any of the silicate minerals.

If you understood what said here, you would understand why I say the creation of Adam from soil (or “dust of the ground”), is nothing than ludicrous myth, and have no basis in natural reality, because you cannot turn any of silicate into proteins or nucleic acids (eg DNA) or carbohydrates.

The Hebrew myth of human being created from soil, eg clay, come from other myths (Sumerian Enki and Ninhursag, or the Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis or Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Egyptian myths of Atum or Re, or of Khnum the potter god). So the Genesis (especially 2:7), is based on Mesopotamian creation myth, where humans were made from clay, myths that I am sure that Jews borrowed and adapted, while they were living in Babylon during the 6th century BCE.

It is Genesis Creation of Adam that are wishful thinking, with no common sense, and certainly no science.

Why do you keep saying that clays come from mica? They can and do come from feldspars too. Kaolinite, perhaps the most common clay in the world comes from the weathering of feldspars:

Kaolinite | mineral

" They are natural alteration products of feldspars, feldspathoids, and other silicates. "

Mica does probably count as "other silicates". The reason that your mica statement drives me nuts is that though present it is not the major mineral in granites and other plutonic rocks. Feldspars tend to be. And there is a lot of shale out there. More than we would get with just a relatively minor mineral from granites.


Also quartz is SiO2. Silicon is directly below carbon on the periodic table. That tells us the silicon is likely to form the same sort of compounds that carbon does. Your mistake make have arisen from its crystalline structure it forms tetrahedra of SiO4, but those oxygen atoms are shared with other tetrahedra. It has been many many users since I took my mineralogy class, but figuring out how various atoms were shared as part of crystalline structures was part of the course. It is easy to see SiO4 tetrahedra and make the mistake of thinking that is the formula for the mineral:

Quartz - Wikipedia

 

[gnostic]

Why do you keep saying that clays come from mica? They can and do come from feldspars too. Kaolinite, perhaps the most common clay in the world comes from the weathering of feldspars:

Kaolinite | mineral

" They are natural alteration products of feldspars, feldspathoids, and other silicates. "

Mica does probably count as "other silicates". The reason that your mica statement drives me nuts is that though present it is not the major mineral in granites and other plutonic rocks. Feldspars tend to be. And there is a lot of shale out there. More than we would get with just a relatively minor mineral from granites.


Also quartz is SiO2. Silicon is directly below carbon on the periodic table. That tells us the silicon is likely to form the same sort of compounds that carbon does. Your mistake make have arisen from its crystalline structure it forms tetrahedra of SiO4, but those oxygen atoms are shared with other tetrahedra. It has been many many users since I took my mineralogy class, but figuring out how various atoms were shared as part of crystalline structures was part of the course. It is easy to see SiO4 tetrahedra and make the mistake of thinking that is the formula for the mineral:

Quartz - Wikipedia

You are right, the basic chemical composition of silicate is SiO2, not SiO4.

As to clay mineral, I am basing that clay minerals being silicate of the type “phyllosilicate” minerals, which mica are, while feldspar are of the “tectosilicate”.

But I suppose that feldspar can be weathered to be clay minerals too. I am not fussy with clay of having mica origin or feldspar origin, so I will concede that clay can made from feldspar too.

It doesn’t matter which silicate exist in any soil. Either way (feldspar, mica or quartz), none of these minerals exist in human cells, if people who were to believe in Genesis creation of Adam, as @Wildswanderer most likely do.

Silicate have no place in human biology, until permineralisation start the fossilizing processes, when the cells are no longer cells.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are right, the basic chemical composition of silicate is SiO2, not SiO4.

As to clay mineral, I am basing that clay minerals being silicate of the type “phyllosilicate” minerals, which mica are, while feldspar are of the “tectosilicate”.

But I suppose that feldspar can be weathered to be clay minerals too. I am not fussy with clay of having mica origin or feldspar origin, so I will concede that clay can made from feldspar too.

It doesn’t matter which silicate exist in any soil. Either way (feldspar, mica or quartz), none of these minerals exist in human cells, if people who were to believe in Genesis creation of Adam, as @Wildswanderer most likely do.

Silicate have no place in human biology, until permineralisation start the fossilizing processes, when the cells are no longer cells.

Or unless one has a strong case of diarrhea. Have you ever heard of Kaopectate? It used to be a mixture of kaolin and pectate. At any rate it is the amount of shale that we see in the sedimentary record that made me challenge your claim. If you think about it the chemistry of sedimentary rocks has to come from the igneous rocks that were the ultimate source and knowing how much mica there tends to be made me check your claims. Sandstones tend to be very high in quartz, even though it is not the major element in granites. And siltstones exist but they are not all that common. One tends to see shales, carbonates, and sandstones. Shale makes up a whopping 70% of all sedimentary rocks (roughly):

Shale | rock

Carbonates about 15% and sandstone 10%. Another 5% would be various things like siltstone, conglomerates, etc.. And I know that the various plutonic rocks that form the crust are not anywhere close to 70% mica. They are over 70% non-quartz silicates. I was not counting quartz since it does not weather to clays. It only forms finer and finer quartz pieces. Chemically it is about as stable as it gets.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Creationist: "Chalk and shale deposits were laid down during the flood"

Us: How does that work? Please explain.

Creationist:

What I have experienced is that they run away, then wait and either come back much later in the discussion or join a new discussion and present the same empty claims, logical fallacies and misinformation that they presented before as if these things were brand new, never-before-seen, unassailable truths. Without anymore explanation or support than was offered before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I have experienced is that they run away, then wait and either come back much later in the discussion or join a new discussion and present the same empty claims, logical fallacies and misinformation that they presented before as if these things were brand new, never-before-seen, unassailable truths. Without anymore explanation or support than was offered before.

Or as I have seen from some: Demand that someone refute something. It gets refuted. He or she says nothing. Then pages later brings up the same claim again and demands that one refute it one more time. The time to object to the refutation was when it was made. Not pages later.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Or as I have seen form some: Demand that someone refute something. It gets refuted. He or she says nothing. Then pages later brings up the same claim again and demands that one refute it one more time. The time to object to the refutation was when it was made. Not pages later.

It is really just a game.

I really can't imagine how it can be intellectually fulfilling to operate like that.

 

[Jose Fly]

What I have experienced is that they run away, then wait and either come back much later in the discussion or join a new discussion and present the same empty claims, logical fallacies and misinformation that they presented before as if these things were brand new, never-before-seen, unassailable truths. Without anymore explanation or support than was offered before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is really just a game.

I really can't imagine how it can be intellectually fulfilling to operate like that.

For me it is a win when I learn something that I had not known before. It does not matter if my opponent learns anything. They rarely do.

 

[rational experiences]

A human says I'm intelligent. Let me advise you why.

Digs up mutated humans bodies very old. But deceased also as data.

Looks at life now healthy but also mutated and sick.

Medical sciences owns a huge human list of all body sufferings. Born by sex. Living. Right now.

Humans say we are still with Jesus. Then go through the detail life was saved from being sacrificed. But still lives body changed now. Cries about how much human animal death brought that realisation to humanity.

Reason to say we are still with Jesus barely existing as genesis.

Science says.... let me think.

Above us light is gases burning in law cooled above only that keeps life saved.

Oh phi fallout Jesus still exists it hasn't stopped. As it hasn't all bodily been saved cooled. Once as law of heavens. No Jesus.

So men of science brought in a legal precedence stating so never ever change it ever again. We were life saved by its stopped above attack. Lucky to still be alive now. Yet are not completely saved yet.

A future in natural laws infinity increase will bring that event to earths body.

Knew only infinity increasing will stop it.

Word as false preaching. To read articles interpret the article is to mislead the public.

Satanisms.

Flood story.

Man broke gods laws of mountain mass. I shifted the mountain. A testimonial cannot be argued against. It's mass I tried to convert by melt laws metals back into law origin volcano. Heavens gas beginnings.

Temple steps proven were melted.

As it could not melt as earths mass its face disintegrated... as face of mountain scorched blackened.

Man following his thesis of causes knowing he owned causing it.

Fell at mountains feet and piled up bodies of dusts. Seen everywhere on bare naked earths mother's body. Loss garden nature burnt out.

When I historically became sexually deviated also.

So today men do the same in nuclear power plants. Remove mass back to volcanic history. Huge storms floods everywhere as man owns law breaking earths seals.

The ark ufo stopped on top of Ararat he said. As it hit melted it's presence UFO eye RA ark on Ararat.

So rat is in the Muslim documents...a summation. When cloud burning angel fell was heard as the cave theme of the humans mountain warnings. Sink holes made in side of its face.

At the side he said.
it pierced. Some mountains spewed out lava in the event...earths blood of its body.

Jesus event made sink holes on ground.

Face veiled was clouds as amassed cooling covered the whole mountain face cooling of it's mass. Stopping melt law a UFO owned in its own eviction back into space infinity laws. Told exactly why you never activate it again.

Flooding atop over mountain saved life.

From below humans dying Sacrificed could see it occurring above upon the mount. Memory of it. As they were under the flood living on ground is exactly how it was taught.

How you read it isn't how it was written. It wasn't science. It was a testimony legal review.

The ark was stopped had saved life. As new cloud remassing was taking life's water above our heads saved life below.

You have to be living to count a day.

Raining flooding saved life on earth cooling burning gases.

As colours are only inherited seen through water. Law Joseph isn't the gases above event. Isn't gods laws said men.

Was involved in man's science causes. Spirit heavens that sacrificed it's spirit gas many coloured body and gods flesh on ground based story.

When birds could be seen flying above again was a sign it had ended. As a caused man attack as science isn't God does not own mass.

Themed why God did it to man yet science activated it.

As birds as in new evil satanic heavens man caused attacks in modern times fell dying on the ground in huge flocks. Fishes by masses died in the sea.

Humans starving given food unnaturally. As crops burnt in ground crop landings.

Why the Jewish who remembered Egyptian built sciences who assisted Rome were not allowed to return home...Henge builders.

Nor was the Jewish science temples allowed to ever be rebuilt. If they tried they were murdered.

Healing temples only said human agreed law. Based on Buddhists mountain teachings. Who came down to teach same story.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. They have stellar hair.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For me it is a win when I learn something that I had not known before. It does not matter if my opponent learns anything. They rarely do.

That is what keeps me interested too. Even those folks bent on twisting everything to fit in their little box sometimes bring something interesting and occasionally something new to the discussion. Now if we could just get them to understand what they have found, that would be a daisy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Denying all common sense reasoning isn't science. It's wishful thinking.
The complexity of life is so far beyond anything that can happen by accident.

You've already demonstrated you aren't employing sound reasoning on this thread. So yes, I would agree that denying common sense reasoning isn't science.

 

[Eric Hyom]

If you have ever studied the molecular structures of cells and the molecular structures of soil, they are not the same things, and it would be impossible be transformed soil into blood, bones and tissues.

Then demand the same logic for evolution. Life started from no life. Water is not blood, bones and tissue. But you are content to accept evolution from non life over a period of 3.7 billion years. This sounds more like magic to me.

The complexity of life is such, that it could not happen without God.

 

[gnostic]

Then demand the same logic for evolution. Life started from no life. Water is not blood, bones and tissue. But you are content to accept evolution from non life over a period of 3.7 billion years. This sounds more like magic to me.

The complexity of life is such, that it could not happen without God.

You are talking about Evolution, but Evolution isn’t about the origin of first life on Earth. What you are really talking about, is Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

Evolution is about the mechanisms of changes, where life already existed.

For instance, if you want to research the differences and relatedness between brown bears and polar bears, if you were a “expert” in bear biology, you would just study the living species, and compared their physical morphology, their habits, their DNA, etc. There are no needs to finding and testing fossils, although you can, but it isn’t productive with your time and resources.

Did you know that the brown bears are more closely related to the polar bears than to the black bears?

That come from DNA tests.

That because the polar bears evolved from the brown bears, but the diversification occurred between 150 and 250 thousand years ago, during the Ice Ages - the Quaternary Glaciation. The brown bears that were stuck in large regions that were covered in ice sheets, there would be no annual summer season for tens of thousands of years in these regions.

Unlike regions that were unaffected ice sheets, where the brown bears continued to do as they always do, hunt or foray for food, eat as much before they “hibernate”...

...but the environment changed during the Ice Ages, so the brown bears have to change their physical traits and way of life, of not hibernating there are no warmer seasons during Ice Ages.

The evolution of the bears and Ice Ages example, is a very clear example of Natural Selection.

There are no magic involved in Evolution.

Abiogenesis is a study of the origin of organic or biological matters (or organic molecules or compounds, eg amino acids & proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, etc), the origin of cells, and the origin of first life.

Biological macromolecules, such as proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates, are essential components in every living cells. Understanding what each of these macromolecules are and how these molecules work, are essential for all life.

They are also essential knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry, and that’s all every single cells - “chemistry”. And there are no magic in chemistry and in chemical reactions, whether the molecular structures are simple or complex, there are no magic.

If you think chemistry and biology are magic, then it is no wonder that you failed in these subjects.

Evolution don’t require knowledge of Abiogenesis to work.

But whether you are talking about Evolution or Abiogenesis, there are no magic involved.

Magic only exist in stories like Genesis creation and like miracles in gospels, or in myths and fairytales. Abiogenesis and Evolution are not fairytales.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then demand the same logic for evolution. Life started from no life. Water is not blood, bones and tissue. But you are content to accept evolution from non life over a period of 3.7 billion years. This sounds more like magic to me.

The complexity of life is such, that it could not happen without God.

Every single living organism that has ever lived came about from non-life by a well-understood and observed chemical process. You already readily accept that chemical, biological processes can produce life.

 

[Eric Hyom]

You are talking about Evolution, but Evolution isn’t about the origin of first life on Earth. What you are really talking about, is Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

So you do believe in magic. As you point out in a previous post, life can't come from soil, they are not the same things, and it would be impossible be transformed soil into blood, bones and tissues. Even if abiogenesis started in the oceans, how can this be transformed into tissue, blood and bones?

Evolution don’t require knowledge of Abiogenesis to work.

Abiogenesis had to start somehow, without abiogenesis there is no evolution. Life was single cell/multi cell for about the first three billion years. No blood and bones. If you want to talk about evolution start from single cell life. Once you have bears, evolution is understandable.

Evolution can only happen with God in control. God created everything according to its kind, and life has been left to evolve. I have no problem at all with evolution.

 

[Audie]

So you do believe in magic. As you point out in a previous post, life can't come from soil, they are not the same things, and it would be impossible be transformed soil into blood, bones and tissues. Even if abiogenesis started in the oceans, how can this be transformed into tissue, blood and bones?



Abiogenesis had to start somehow, without abiogenesis there is no evolution. Life was single cell/multi cell for about the first three billion years. No blood and bones. If you want to talk about evolution start from single cell life. Once you have bears, evolution is understandable.

Evolution can only happen with God in control. God created everything according to its kind, and life has been left to evolve. I have no problem at all with evolution.

You have no idea what you are talking about

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then demand the same logic for evolution. Life started from no life. Water is not blood, bones and tissue. But you are content to accept evolution from non life over a period of 3.7 billion years. This sounds more like magic to me.

The complexity of life is such, that it could not happen without God.

You perhaps are unaware that the theory of evolution is not a theory describing the origin of life. The first logical step would be one where it is not conflated with the origin of life.

The facts are such that they show no evidence of the actions of an agent and are equally not evidence against the existence of an agent. That's logical too, coming from the facts that exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have no idea what you are talking about

Also that.