Man sprouting from the ground...science or myth?

[gnostic]

Grandliseur:

I can understand that all creationists being theists.

But I don’t understand how you lump all those who are scientists, including biologists (those who accept evolution) and biochemists (those who are trying to figure out abiogenesis) as being “atheists”.

You keep lumping abiogenesis and evolution as these being the same as atheism.

Atheism have nothing to with science. And neither does theism.

Both atheism and theism only relate to the question of the “existence” of deity or deities, and nothing else. Theists believe in god or gods; atheists don’t. That is all it is. There are no science involved in either of them.

Not all biologists are atheists, just as not all biologists are theists. Most biologists don’t even advertise their religious background and belief, because when working as biologists such beliefs are irrelevant.

It is straw man and gross generalisation.

How do you know that there aren’t Jews or Christians who accept either evolution or abiogenesis?

And abiogenesis is an ongoing hypothesis, meaning it is still undergoing development, researching and testing stages. Abiogenesis is still hypothetical and theoretical. Nothing is certain yet in abiogenesis about how life might have “form” (not “evolve”), and there are several possible scenarios.

Please stop equating atheism with any scientific field. Atheism and science are not the same, never have been, never will be.

 

[Grandliseur]

That's usually because a creationist will try and argue that since the origin of the first life forms is an unsolved question, it's somehow a knock against evolutionary biology

Excuse me, but in the discussion about God exists and he doesn't, wouldn't you expect the subjects to turn exactly about the things that stump you! As scripture says:

For every house is builded by some one; but he that built all things is God.

19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks;​

Thus, if you cannot, or do not want to , admit that life only could have begun by an intelligent designer, you are the one who stops the continuation of the subject. This is the central issue of the problem between Creationists and Atheists.

I'm not sure what you mean by "shot to pieces"

Well, both sides have their guns targeted on this poor little subject. It must have a lot of holes now.

.are you aware that there are a lot of theists who have no problem at all with the science of evolution and origins research?

Of course. But those who accept evolution actually reject Christ and his ransom, and therefore salvation. Not my problem.

Have you looked at the videos of some of our fine professors?

the best way to tell is to compare the two models and see which one best explains the data and generates new, useful results. Does that sound about right to you, or do you have something else in mind?

Yes, but there are all kinds of influencing factors; otherwise, there would not be so many C. denominations. Then you have interpretation of the facts. I no longer belong to any denomination; I do not want to have others decide what my faith should be.
In the same manner, I decide for myself what the scientific facts mean. That means I look at both sides.

If you find the simplest of all man-made things, a toothpick, why do you think you can so easily identify among all kinds of trash and natural objects, that this little piece of wood is man-made. If you can do this easily, why can you not see that all things natural are built by God. Do they lack complexity, intelligent design? Do our eyes sit on the end of our fingers and toes, randomly?

First, I've not said anything about what I do or don't believe.

Well, it is not part of your personal data. Thus I cannot know, and I haven't heard you say anything. (too many here to keep track of, to remember)

 

[gnostic]

I've read and come across some interesting alternative thoughts regarding texts which I would presume fits with "allegory." The book of Genesis being the book of genes. Adam and Eve being not literal human beings and the rib being a ribosome. The clay, well that is scientifically thought that it may be a catalyst for the function of RNA. And Eve, being the mother of all living, perhaps as RNA or Adam+Eve referring to the first living cell. The mentioning of
Bedellium: oleo-gum resin.
Onyx stone: silica/silicon dioxide.

Or mitochondria Eve, I've also come across.

According to "science," it is possible to create a living breathing adult human from dust/clay/soil. It would just take lots of time.

For a human to instantaneously sprout up in its entirety wouldn't fit with science, that would certainly take an act of power from an alternative source.

Also, if life were breathed into the first living cell by this alternative source, and informed/coded to be fruitful and multiply(self-replicate) to guide into the eventual human being, or if the Frankenstein first cell was zapped from the heavens by this source, who knows such a thing.

Sorry, but you are just spinning all sorts of scenarios.

With each of these scenarios, you would (A) either provide evidences to back your claims, (B) or if you are not a scientist, then at the very least cite your scientific sources of where you getting your ideas from.

You wrote:

According to "science," it is possible to create a living breathing adult human from dust/clay/soil. It would just take lots of time.​

According to what “science”? Who wrote or said that? Do you have the book, article, journal or webpage that said what you claimed above?

Cite your sources that science says such thing.

 

[Profound Realization]

Sorry, but you are just spinning all sorts of scenarios.

With each of these scenarios, you would (A) either provide evidences to back your claims, (B) or if you are not a scientist, then at the very least cite your scientific sources of where you getting your ideas from.

You wrote:

According to "science," it is possible to create a living breathing adult human from dust/clay/soil. It would just take lots of time.​

According to what “science”? Who wrote or said that? Do you have the book, article, journal or webpage that said what you claimed above?

Cite your sources that science says such thing.

I think that you need to re-read. I mentioned instantaneously in a separate paragraph.

The paragraph you are referring to and quoted, is not referring to instantaneous creation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First off, on the video presentations of Doctor Walter Veith about Genesis, the flood and other such items of fact, I agree with his interpretation of these facts.

And these facts are...?

Other professors who support the Bible, who also present facts which I agree with. The professor here has material that I agree with. The video is chosen at random simply to introduce you to this person:

The archaeological facts I agree with.(some of these I referred to in post #114)

And why do you agree with these select few people and not the overwhelming majority of scientists who disagree with them? Are you aware of the facts that utterly contradict their interpretations?

I hear you, and I know that many say this. This is deflection.

How is it a deflection to admit ignorance?

You avoid the question to avoid the unpleasant conclusion that Goddidit.

Again, it's not avoiding the question if you admit not knowing. Do you seriously believe "God" is an inevitable conclusion? What makes you even think I'm not a theist?

The Biblical claim is very simple. Paul simply says "4 For every house is builded by some one; but he that built all things is God. ", and:

19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks;​

So, when combining the take we have on the scientific facts, the archaeological facts, the prophetic fulfillments -- there is enough for many Christians to know that God exists and created all things.

And what scientific facts support the Bible?

It again comes down to seeing Rolls Royce, toothpick left on beach sand, knowing somebody crafted this because it carries signs that can only come from intelligent design.

False equivalence. You don't recognize design as an inherent aspect of something - you recognize design because we see things being designed and know of no natural phenomenon that produces them. If we went into an uncharted jungle and found Rolls Royce's growing on a tree, you wouldn't be using that as an example. It's only because we observe it being designed that you assert it as an example of design.

I do not expect you or other atheists to become believers.

What makes you think I'm an atheist?

I simply address another question put out there that speaks to Christians about their beliefs. If you really want better evidence than I can provide, you go to those professor Christians who have material out there for you about this.

I'm asking YOU why YOU believe it. Present YOUR case.

Let me say this, though, I am OEC, and believe the YEC nonsense.

Good for you?

 

[Grandliseur]

And these facts are...?

Check it out for yourself:
Browse Media - Genesis Conflict - English/ - Amazing Discoveries TV

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Check it out for yourself:
Browse Media - Genesis Conflict - English/ - Amazing Discoveries TV

Please present your case in your own words. I'm certain you would not want me just posting links to all the evidence and papers on evolution, and you would justifiably make little effort to read such papers.

Also, please be respectful and at least make some effort to address all of my questions. It is becoming increasingly frustrating that I show each of your claims and statements this kind of respect while you continue to ignore the majority of what I write.

 

[Grandliseur]

Also, please be respectful and at least make some effort to address all of my questions.

Sorry about that.

Please present your case in your own words.

My case is simple, and as mentioned before, what other people is immaterial to me. I make up my up my own mind.
The claim of abiogenesis is as stupid to me as YEC is.

The claim of Evolution doesn't make sense to me either. Whether you claim this is because of background, upbringing, matters not. I used to do programming, and when we look at the problems a little programming gives the modern world with security issues and always updating to remove errors and improve the operation of the software, nothing but an intelligent design makes sense to me.

What makes it possible for you to at the beach look at a toothpick lying in the sand and say with 100% certainty, 'this is manmade' !
Thus my logic, and the information I have studied on the sites you don't want me to quote to you, the books I have studied before -- tells me with 100% certainty that this is God's work.

Having brought God into this, I can tell you that I have had prayers answered, just as if you called someone on the phone and asked for pizza, and had it brought to you. (paying of course)

This subject (on this tread) from the beginning has been about giving a response to what was claimed from a Creationist's viewpoint. I didn't come here to argue the validity of either Abiogenesis or Evolution - since they aren't valid in my world, in my reality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sorry about that.

It's okay.

My case is simple, and as mentioned before, what other people is immaterial to me. I make up my up my own mind.
The claim of abiogenesis is as stupid to me as YEC is.

But why? Surely you would accept that every human being reproduces using material that isn't previously alive, correct? At some point during the process of development, non-living material becomes living. This is a phenomenon observed every time any living thing reproduces. Why is it so unbelievable to think that this may possibly occur organically to turn some non-living form into the first, very simple, living form?

The claim of Evolution doesn't make sense to me either. Whether you claim this is because of background, upbringing, matters not. I used to do programming, and when we look at the problems a little programming gives the modern world with security issues and always updating to remove errors and improve the operation of the software, nothing but an intelligent design makes sense to me.

Why? What do you know of evolutionary theory that makes it make no sense to you?

What makes it possible for you to at the beach look at a toothpick lying in the sand and say with 100% certainty, 'this is manmade' !

Nothing, because a toothpick is just a tiny fragment of wood. It could easily have been the result of a tree being damaged and a piece of it being carried by the wind.

But, ignoring that, here is a superior analogy:

Let's imagine you've never seen a toothpick before and have no idea what it's function is. In fact, you've never seen a tree or any form of wood before, and have no idea of its origin either. You find a toothpick on the beach. How do you go about determining whether it is a man-made object or something that occurs naturally without prior knowledge of what process forms it or what it is made of?

Thus my logic, and the information I have studied on the sites you don't want me to quote to you, the books I have studied before -- tells me with 100% certainty that this is God's work.

How?

Having brought God into this, I can tell you that I have had prayers answered, just as if you called someone on the phone and asked for pizza, and had it brought to you. (paying of course)

So you can pray for my friend not to have drowned? Could you do that for me?

This subject (on this tread) from the beginning has been about giving a response to what was claimed from a Creationist's viewpoint. I didn't come here to argue the validity of either Abiogenesis or Evolution - since they aren't valid in my world, in my reality.

Despite the fact that they are, or could be, so your world may be the wrong one.

 

[Grandliseur]

Surely you would accept that every human being reproduces using material that isn't previously alive, correct?

You have gotten into the metaphysical for me here. Our reproduction is done with living material, material that dies if it doesn't accomplish its purpose of joining and making another organism.

We exist by consuming other life, plant and animal matter. Life feeds life - there is no other way, except that of the sun that feeds the plants. In this way, we consume life which turns out to be made of light, and some chemicals, stuff.

evolutionary theory that makes it make no sense to you

The thing that keeps coming back to bite the theory in its tail feathers is DNA, DNA programming. It needs to be present in the cell for the cell to be able to read the DNA instructions. In this sense, it becomes its own death-stroke to the evolutionary claim.

The algorithm for translation must be present in DNA form for the DNA to be read. You cannot just have a simple little program execute. The case for evolution and how it supposedly happens doesn't support this.

Evolution is supposed to happen when a mutation is beneficial to its incidental recipient. If it isn't beneficial it remains invalid and does not assist in being beneficial to this line and its survival. It cannot say, 'I need an eye' and work to accomplish this, or, I need a DNA translation matrix before I can begin to program my DNA for the next level. Another problem is the development of sexual organs of organisms that depend on sexual reproduction. The programming necessary for this is extreme and to claim these programs developed as part of accumulating errors is beyond the blue. It is so far out, it belongs in an entirely different multiverse.

The concept of evolution planning its evolution is a fallacy.

Nothing, because a toothpick is just a tiny fragment of wood. It could easily have been the result of a tree being damaged and a piece of it being carried by the wind.

You are making a claim that clearly is against the facts. Anyone can identify this because it has clear earmarks of being made and we are the only makers on this planet with that kind of capability. Thus it screams, 'I am made by man.'

without prior knowledge of what process forms it or what it is made of?

But, I do have this knowledge. This is what things are, conclusions on our life experiences, our studies, etc. There is no supposing anything here.

So you can pray for my friend not to have drowned? Could you do that for me?

Funny! Going back in time. God doesn't do windows. And, he also doesn't cure my wife who is deadly ill. Things against his will - will not be done, and we are born, live and die. Asking not to grow old or old and ill will not be responded to with a favorable answer. In this system of things, death is the end of the road, back to not being.

so your world may be the wrong one

Still, I am 100% certain of my reality. Are you of yours? Either way, I do not mind at all. Have a beer while you relax. Nothing matters, except that which does.

 

[gnostic]

I think that you need to re-read. I mentioned instantaneously in a separate paragraph.

The paragraph you are referring to and quoted, is not referring to instantaneous creation.

Whether it take a long time or instantaneous, it still doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t disclose your sources that some scientists agree with your claims when you have one...if you even have one.

Do you have a source that humans were made from dust, soil or clay?

Or was your claim - ‘according to “science”...’ merely rhetoric?

 

[Profound Realization]

Whether it take a long time or instantaneous, it still doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t disclose your sources that some scientists agree with your claims...if you even have one.

Do you have a source that humans were made from dust, soil or clay?

Or was your claim - ‘according to “science”...’ merely rhetoric?

I will rephrase for you to better understand:

According to science, it is possible for a living, breathing, human being to come from dust/clay/soil. It would just take a lot of time and "going through the entire alleged unguided, evolutionary theorized process leading up to that human."

What I was referring to was the hypothesis of abiogenesis and theory/hypothesis' of evolution in science.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You have gotten into the metaphysical for me here. Our reproduction is done with living material, material that dies if it doesn't accomplish its purpose of joining and making another organism.

But, at some point, that material is non-living, or at least comprised of non-living elements, correct? Surely you would agree that at some point prior to your birth, the material that went on to comprise your body was non-living.

We exist by consuming other life, plant and animal matter. Life feeds life - there is no other way, except that of the sun that feeds the plants. In this way, we consume life which turns out to be made of light, and some chemicals, stuff.

Another indication that non-living material can become living material through biological processes.

The thing that keeps coming back to bite the theory in its tail feathers is DNA, DNA programming. It needs to be present in the cell for the cell to be able to read the DNA instructions. In this sense, it becomes its own death-stroke to the evolutionary claim.

How? DNA is the best evidence we have of evolution.

The algorithm for translation must be present in DNA form for the DNA to be read. You cannot just have a simple little program execute. The case for evolution and how it supposedly happens doesn't support this.

Can you demonstrate that this "programming" cannot be a result of natural processes?

Evolution is supposed to happen when a mutation is beneficial to its incidental recipient. If it isn't beneficial it remains invalid and does not assist in being beneficial to this line and its survival. It cannot say, 'I need an eye' and work to accomplish this, or, I need a DNA translation matrix before I can begin to program my DNA for the next level.

How is this a problem? Evolution works on organisms which are already self-replicating (i.e: living). DNA replication is not an evolved trait (although evolution can influence it), it is a necessary trait for life to exist before evolution can occur.

Another problem is the development of sexual organs of organisms that depend on sexual reproduction. The programming necessary for this is extreme and to claim these programs developed as part of accumulating errors is beyond the blue. It is so far out, it belongs in an entirely different multiverse.

It's actually relatively simple. Sexual reproduction produces greater genetic variety than asexual, and is therefore evolutionarily beneficial. If you imagine it beginning with cells evolving the ability to "inject" their DNA into other cells, it's not difficult to imagine the numerous permutations of that process that may arise over the following millions of years.

The concept of evolution planning its evolution is a fallacy.

Indeed. Evolution doesn't require planning.

You are making a claim that clearly is against the facts.

How can it be against the facts if the question is hypothetical?

Anyone can identify this because it has clear earmarks of being made and we are the only makers on this planet with that kind of capability. Thus it screams, 'I am made by man.'

You completely contradict this statement with your next one:

But, I do have this knowledge. This is what things are, conclusions on our life experiences, our studies, etc. There is no supposing anything here.

Congratulations. You just admitted that you can only recognize design when you already have prior knowledge of its design process. Without that knowledge, you have no basis to assert anything. That was the point of my question - that we recognize design not because of an intrinsic facet of the object, but because we are able to understand and analyze the process of a object's creation and contrast it with nature. Your argument is "I know it's design because it screams "design" and the hallmarks of design are that I have seen it being designed". This is circular reasoning.

Funny!

You find the fact that my friend drowned funny?

Going back in time. God doesn't do windows. And, he also doesn't cure my wife who is deadly ill. Things against his will - will not be done, and we are born, live and die. Asking not to grow old or old and ill will not be responded to with a favorable answer. In this system of things, death is the end of the road, back to not being.

So what prayers DO get answered, then?

Still, I am 100% certain of my reality. Are you of yours?

No. Because 100% certainty is delusional.

Either way, I do not mind at all. Have a beer while you relax. Nothing matters, except that which does.

I don't drink.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I will rephrase for you to better understand:

According to science, it is possible for a living, breathing, human being to come from dust/clay/soil. It would just take a lot of time and "going through the entire alleged unguided, evolutionary theorized process leading up to that human."

What I was referring to was the hypothesis of abiogenesis and theory/hypothesis' of evolution in science.

Where do either abiogenesis or evolution state that it is possible for dust/clay/soil to produce living things?

 

[Grandliseur]

Can you demonstrate that this "programming" cannot be a result of natural processes?

All of the above you had - I reject. This one - is part of how it seems that it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. However, the probability of something can be calculated. And, in this evolution looses.

If you had any experience with programming, you would know that even 2d programming that we do, or even linear, one dimensional programming, which is what we might be doing, is beyond the pale.

Evolution works on organisms which are already self-replicating (i.e: living).

Not really interested in this discussion about evolution. So much has been written by smarter minds than I - that clearly shows evolution to be false.

You just admitted that you can only recognize design when you already have prior knowledge of its design process.

That is not true. When one recognizes superior design of a kind beyond our own ability, this is clearly obvious.

I don't drink.

Most things are OK in moderation, but each to his own.

As I said before, whether to you or someone else, the discussion about evolution and abiogenesis goes nowhere. It is a waste of time. You do not move from your position, and neither do I.

Better answers than mine are easily found on the net.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All of the above you had - I reject. This one - is part of how it seems that it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. However, the probability of something can be calculated. And, in this evolution looses.

Then please show this probability.

If you had any experience with programming, you would know that even 2d programming that we do, or even linear, one dimensional programming, which is what we might be doing, is beyond the pale.

But how does this relate to chemical processes governed by natural laws?

Not really interested in this discussion about evolution. So much has been written by smarter minds than I - that clearly shows evolution to be false.

And what do they write? Are you aware of the work of countless scientists that indicates evolution to be true?

That is not true. When one recognizes superior design of a kind beyond our own ability, this is clearly obvious.

Then please demonstrate how you determine design independent of direct observation of the design process. As of now, this is merely an argument from ignorance.

Most things are OK in moderation, but each to his own.

As I said before, whether to you or someone else, the discussion about evolution and abiogenesis goes nowhere. It is a waste of time. You do not move from your position, and neither do I.

Better answers than mine are easily found on the net.

All I've done for the last few posts is question and challenge your position, and most of what you have done is make assertions and then not respond to questions or challenges. This strongly indicates that only one of us is not willing to change their position, and it is definitely not me.

 

[Profound Realization]

Where do either abiogenesis or evolution state that it is possible for dust/clay/soil to produce living things?

According to "science."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105132027.htm

 

[ImmortalFlame]

According to "science."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105132027.htm

1) This is merely a hypothesis that isn't yet intrinsic to either evolutionary theory or abiogenesis.

2) It doesn't say life itself could have arisen from clay, just some of the biochemicals that make it possible for life to form.

3) It says nothing of dust or soil (which makes sense, considering both are at least partially comprised of formerly living matter).

 

[Jose Fly]

Excuse me, but in the discussion about God exists and he doesn't, wouldn't you expect the subjects to turn exactly about the things that stump you! As scripture says:

For every house is builded by some one; but he that built all things is God.

19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks;​

Thus, if you cannot, or do not want to , admit that life only could have begun by an intelligent designer, you are the one who stops the continuation of the subject. This is the central issue of the problem between Creationists and Atheists.

That is a fundamental difference between you and I. You see this as a debate between atheists and Christians, I don't. For me, this has nothing at all to do with whether or not God exists.

Of course. But those who accept evolution actually reject Christ and his ransom, and therefore salvation.

They do? How do you know that?

Have you looked at the videos of some of our fine professors?

Yes. Is there anything specific in them you wish to discuss?

Yes, but there are all kinds of influencing factors; otherwise, there would not be so many C. denominations. Then you have interpretation of the facts. I no longer belong to any denomination; I do not want to have others decide what my faith should be.
In the same manner, I decide for myself what the scientific facts mean. That means I look at both sides.

And what have you looked at from the evolution side?

If you find the simplest of all man-made things, a toothpick, why do you think you can so easily identify among all kinds of trash and natural objects, that this little piece of wood is man-made. If you can do this easily, why can you not see that all things natural are built by God. Do they lack complexity, intelligent design? Do our eyes sit on the end of our fingers and toes, randomly?

I see that as a combination of logical fallacies. The first is the fallacy of false analogy, where you're trying to analogize between inanimate objects and living organisms. The second is the fallacy of composition, where you're trying to argue that because one complex object is "designed", then all complex things must be designed.

And I have to wonder.....if you believe all natural things are deliberately and specifically created by God, does that include viruses, parasites, infectious bacteria, and all the other organisms that cause untold death and suffering?

Well, it is not part of your personal data. Thus I cannot know, and I haven't heard you say anything. (too many here to keep track of, to remember)

Exactly. Yet you seem to assume that merely because I am an advocate for science, I must be an atheist. You might want to think on that a bit more.

 

[Profound Realization]

1) This is merely a hypothesis that isn't yet intrinsic to either evolutionary theory or abiogenesis.

2) It doesn't say life itself could have arisen from clay, just some of the biochemicals that make it possible for life to form.

3) It says nothing of dust or soil (which makes sense, considering both are at least partially comprised of formerly living matter).

1). Already stated this in original post, not that it matters since hypothesis' are all instrisic with abiogenesis and evolution theory as is.
2) It entertains both.
3. Some things go without the need to mention: Dust is fine particles of matter. Soil is a mixture of organic matter, minerals, gases, liquids, and organisms that together support life.