The creator did it.

[Hockeycowboy]

Wrong again. This only shows a lack of understanding, at best, of what the scientists are doing in the lab. They are trying to replicate early Earth environments. One cannot replicate abiogenesis naturally today since existing life will consume the various precursors to life. The only way to test it is in a laboratory.

We were specifically talking about "self-replicating RNA".

'This only shows a lack of understanding'. Yeah, I'll say!

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time .......
"Their work began with a method of forced adaptation known as in vitro evolution." (IOW, "directed evolution".)

Oh, I hear the fat lady singing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We were specifically talking about "self-replicating RNA".

'This only shows a lack of understanding'. Yeah, I'll say!

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time .......
"Their work began with a method of forced adaptation known as in vitro evolution." (IOW, "directed evolution".)

Oh, I hear the fat lady singing.

A term quoted out of context that you did not understand does not support your argument. The point of the experiment was to see if a possible precursor to life could replicate RNA on its own. It succeeded better than they thought that it could. Since abiogenesis would have taken many years to test it various steps must be tested independently. This is not an example of "intelligent design".

 

[joelr]

I am just posting this to help some people here to better understand what we mean when we talk about the historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts...
Author:

Mathew
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-70

Mark
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-60
Early Identification: Papias A.D.140

Luke
Date written: Gospel A.D.60-80, Acts A.D.63-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

John
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-85,1John A.D.70-100, 2John A.D.85-95, 3John A.D.85-95, Revelation A.D.69-95

E

scholars mostly agree that all gospels were written after the Jewish war and were all copied from Mark as there are pages and pages of verbatim Greek between the gospels. Each author then adds new stories. Luke adds a re-write of the Kings narrative

at 28:09 a PhD talks a little bit about Mark and Matthew and the Greek

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Yeah, very hard. Lol.

Here’s just one issue:
DNA requires proteins to form, then to function.
Yet, proteins are built by DNA.

And RNA (outside a lab, ie., intelligent design) doesn’t replicate.

DNA is NOT a protein, nor is it made FROM proteins. Think about it, if DNA was made from protein, there would be a lot more copying errors within the genome. DNA most likely formed from RNA, since RNA can catalyze its own duplication(forever). RNA also have the same precursors as DNA, such as peptide nucleic acids. In DNA, a deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA, without the use of any protein enzymes at all. This property is important in the synthesis of amino acids. DNA is composed of a nitrogenous base, phosphate, and nucleotides. Proteins are large molecules composed of smaller molecules, called amino acids. DNA provides the template to synthesize these amino acids to form proteins. It take 287 amino acid residues to form one hemoglobin molecule(protein). Proteins do not synthesize nucleotides to build a molecule of DNA. Also, because we don't see RNA self-replicating in nature(outside the lab), does not mean that it does not happen(black swan fallacy).

This is not the chicken or the egg problem. This is simply an example of inductive and deductive reasoning. It firstly assumes that all complexity evolve from simplicity, or something less complex. You are implying that it is the house that produced the design. This of course would be thermodynamically impossible, and would violate the laws of Entropy. Just remember, the origin of the first life was the integration of early chemical evolution, time, trial and error, natural forces, and possibly luck. But unless you can point to any examples of magic, the supernatural, or the existence of anything that lies outside of the laws in nature, I'm afraid that any real explanation will always trump any imaginary explanation. So, is there another problem that you have an issue with?

 

[Audie]

No, the failure is yours...creating lab-controlled conditions, requires intelligence. They even call it, "forced adaptation".

It shows what molecules can do without being magiced.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

What’s interesting and typical in the three videos is that each one of them scream intelligence and order. Do you notice that? Assumptions and speculation are so overwhelming how can any reasonable person take it seriously? To sum up, oh, and by the way, in the second video, Darwin’s citations acknowledged his doubts of his theory which plagued him throughout his remaining years.

The evolutionist/naturalists are only trying to convince their side that the immense intelligence of an omnipotent creator, namely the living God of the Bible (must specify that) who is the author of life, is being circumvented by trying to make impossible origins by natural processes sound feasible!

Every time evolutionists try to explain our world and all life, they must use words like, could be, might have, if the early earths atmosphere or conditions were this or that, this might be possible for meaningless, purposeless matter to become intelligent through chemical processes to create the vast and incomprehensible information in cells to build organisms upward into viable life both male and female able to reproduce their own kind! You seriously are unable to see this?

Here is a fact you will deny because it doesn’t fit your baseless religion. It is impossible for life to spontaneously generate from nonlife. Your last comment is beautiful!

“It is just hypocritical to totally depend on the reliability of science, and dismiss it only when it clashes with our beliefs.”

Let’s be clear here. We are talking about the context of the origin of life when you say “the reliability of science” The more science discovers, the more it must bend it’s knee to the reality of Intelligent Design and not some “Malfunction Junction” process. You continue, “So, unless you can demonstrate how you know that "God did it", and creation did not naturally occur, then you are simply just another flea biting the back of an elephant.”

Not only did the God decide to tell us about his creation through the Genesis account, the very science you hold so dear validates, or as you say demonstrates the staggering intelligence we see in all life forms! The feeble attempts always being put forth from you guys for the origins of viable reproducible life never changes, it’s always full of false speculation and wishful thinking. The truth of Gods creation surrounds you and yet you are unable to comprehend it which is why you continue to make these meaningless statements. No amount of evidence or truth will be enough for you because you are quite honestly, exactly what you describe, just another flea biting the back of the elephant!
I'd be interested in your ability to discredit these scientific facts in a reasonable way.
Creation - Evolution

What is painfully clear about the three(among thousands) videos, is that they do not make any fallacious appeals to Heaven or Special Covenant. They do not argue from pathos, by appealing to incredulity, ignorance, or even Hoyle's Fallacy. Maybe it's you that is unable to look down and see the poor logic you seem to keep tripping over. A precursor analogy would be to keep building a large standing army, and expect not to create a war. Maybe you can demonstrate where Darwin was conflicted in his theories on "The Origin of Species"(not the origin of life), or in any of his other 39 books? So, do you believe that the hypotheses posited by science to explain the Origin of Life, is just a conspiracy to usurp beliefs in the religious domain? Science tends to provide explanations that are accepted from all perspectives. Not simply from the religious perspective. So please, what is you're fallacy-free explanation of the Origin of the first life? What facts can you deposit as being relevant or objective?

Let me restate your dishonest straw man. It is NOT only impossible for life to spontaneously generate from non-living materials, but also from living materials as well. You were not spontaneously generated by your parents, were you? You needed to go through stages of development(simple to complex), just like all other living organisms. This would certainly be the case with the first life. Or, do you think that the first life was generated fully formed? Did you know that during human embryonic development, all biodiverse stages of development are all represented(Insects, Reptiles, Amphibians, birds, fish, and mammals).

Every time evolutionists try to explain our world and all life, they must use words like, could be, might have, if the early earths atmosphere or conditions were this or that, this might be possible for meaningless, purposeless matter to become intelligent through chemical processes to create the vast and incomprehensible information in cells to build organisms upward into viable life both male and female able to reproduce their own kind! You seriously are unable to see this?

I think you are confused. Evolutionist speak about the origin of species, and how they are formed, evolved and diversified over time. Abiogenesis is the theory of the origin of life, which includes all the elements involved, that can lead to the integration of the first life. The former is a fact, the latter is still a theory/hypothesis.

How do you know that God exists? How do you know the nature of God(good or bad)? What is this staggering intelligence we see in earth worms, slugs, bacteria, snails, frogs, or fungi? How do you know any decisions that a God has made? How do know that the Book of Genesis is the Word of God, let alone validates creation? What is this special knowledge that is accessible to you, and seems inaccessible to me? Are your assertions only belief claims, or are they truth/knowledge claims? If they are truth/knowledge claims, then the facts should be self-evident to any rational thinker, like gravity or the Conservation of Energy. It should also be falsifiable and testable. So please, stop hiding behind any concocted weaknesses in science, and present your own case. Or do you plan to continue proselytizing, and parroting rote-learned religious soundbites, to hide a profound lack of education, or critical thinking skills. In science you would be at best, a curiosity, and at worst, politely ignored.

I think the creationist-manufactured Cambrian Explosion was debunked many years ago. The thermodynamic argument was also debunked, because we are talking about an open system not a closed system. If you don't understand the science, then the default position, is to understand the non-science. Profound ignorance is like power, the longer you have it, the harder it is to let go. I think that the human mind has so much more potential than this.


​

 

[Audie]

DNA is NOT a protein, nor is it made FROM proteins. Think about it, if DNA was made from protein, there would be a lot more copying errors within the genome. DNA most likely formed from RNA, since RNA can catalyze its own duplication(forever). RNA also have the same precursors as DNA, such as peptide nucleic acids. In DNA, a deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA, without the use of any protein enzymes at all. This property is important in the synthesis of amino acids. DNA is composed of a nitrogenous base, phosphate, and nucleotides. Proteins are large molecules composed of smaller molecules, called amino acids. DNA provides the template to synthesize these amino acids to form proteins. It take 287 amino acid residues to form one hemoglobin molecule(protein). Proteins do not synthesize nucleotides to build a molecule of DNA. Also, because we don't see RNA self-replicating in nature(outside the lab), does not mean that it does not happen(black swan fallacy).

This is not the chicken or the egg problem. This is simply an example of inductive and deductive reasoning. It firstly assumes that all complexity evolve from simplicity, or something less complex. You are implying that it is the house that produced the design. This of course would be thermodynamically impossible, and would violate the laws of Entropy. Just remember, the origin of the first life was the integration of early chemical evolution, time, trial and error, natural forces, and possibly luck. But unless you can point to any examples of magic, the supernatural, or the existence of anything that lies outside of the laws in nature, I'm afraid that any real explanation will always trump any imaginary explanation. So, is there another problem that you have an issue with?

We suspect that the problem is a variation on "I dont like it
what is it?".

Except that our creos make up the things they dont like/
say are stupid / impossible.

Something we can all agree to!

 

[He has Risen!]

In the event, I doubt any scientist on (god's green) earth
can produce one (1) datum point, one fact, that shows
that the Christian god is anything but a figment of imagination.

Prease correct me if you can produce one.

Real history? George Washington is said to have
thrown a silver dollar across the Potomac.

The amount of actual history in the life of "jesus
things you could observe via a time machine,
should you have one, how much of it do you think
really happened? Three wise men?
Many fishes? Daemons into pigs?

There is no "historical data" for any of that.

In the event, I doubt any scientist on (god's green) earth
can produce one (1) datum point, one fact, that shows
that the Christian god is anything but a figment of imagination.

Prease correct me if you can produce one.

How does this support the "historical reliability" of the New Testament at all? Your dates are a bit older than most recent scholarship, for example Mark, the oldest of the Gospels is thought to have been written between AD 65 and 75:

When was the Gospel According to Mark Written?

Serious scholars do not seem to think that any of them are "eyewitness testimony". What makes the Gospels historically reliable? Being written more than a generation after the fact hurts their reliability. Luke's error with the date of the Census of Quirinius sinks his Nativity story. The contradictions between Luke's and Matthew's Nativity tells us that both can't be right, but both can be wrong.

scholars mostly agree that all gospels were written after the Jewish war and were all copied from Mark as there are pages and pages of verbatim Greek between the gospels. Each author then adds new stories. Luke adds a re-write of the Kings narrative

I am just posting this to help some people here to better understand what we mean when we talk about the historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts...
Author:

Mathew
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180

Mark
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-60
Early Identification: Papias A.D.140, Irenaeus A.D.180

Luke
Date written: Gospel A.D.60-80, Acts A.D.63-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

John
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-85,1John A.D.70-100, 2John A.D.85-95, 3John A.D.85-95, Revelation A.D.69-95

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Paul
Date written: Romans 57 A.D., 1Corinthians A.D.55, 2Corinthians A.D.55, Galatians A.D.48- 53, Ephesians A.D.60, Philippians A.D.61, Colossians A.D.60, 1Thessalonians A.D.51, 2Thessalonians A.D.51-52, 1Timothy A.D.64, 2Timothy A.D.66-67, Titus A.D.63-65, Philemon A.D.60

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

James
Date written: James A.D.50

Peter
Date written: 1Peter A.D.60-64, 2Peter A.D.65-68

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340

Jude
Date written: Jude A.D.65-80

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340, Athanasius A.D.298-373, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Hebrews
Date written: Hebrews A.D.67-70
Early Identification: Tertullian A.D.155-222


(PS I will be adding more information to this and repost it again with additions as I have the time, thank you for your patience in this regards)
Book Sources:
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Vol.1, The Teachings of the Church Fathers (chap.6) by John Willis (this book is a great resource), Zondervan NIV Study Bible

Internet Sources for your convenience:
Intro to Luke
The Muratorian Fragment
Sinai Palimpsests Processed Images
ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts
Manuscripts - CSNTM
Manuscript P52 - CSNTM

I have reasonably responded to those who I have quoted here. If there is a point that I am missing, please ask it in a way that shows you really want to understand and not just do the "straw man or ad hominem" way of not dealing with the information I have posted, including looking at the websites that I referenced for your convenience. History is understood both by the written records from those times as well as the archeological finds from that historical era. The last quote is from my own post to make it easier for the reader to reference what I had posted on page 39 post #765.
From Google...
Historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence, including the evidence of archaeology, to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past.
Historical method - Wikipedia
Anonymous sources
Historians do allow for the use of anonymous texts to establish historical facts.

Below is a link to the book by crime scene detective and former atheist J. Warner Wallace "Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels".
https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Ch...3HPB0BXEG1Z&psc=1&refRID=N6RG4S8MQ3HPB0BXEG1Z

and you tube video...

J. Warner Wallace website...
Cold Case Christianity

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have reasonably responded to those who I have quoted here. If there is a point that I am missing, please ask it in a way that shows you really want to understand and not just do the "he said, she said" way of not dealing with the information I have posted, including looking at the websites that I referenced for your convenience. History is understood both by the written records from those times as well as the archeological finds from that historical era. The last quote is from my own post to make it easier for the reader to reference what I had posted on page 39 post #765.
From Google...
Historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence, including the evidence of archaeology, to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past.
Historical method - Wikipedia
Anonymous sources
Historians do allow for the use of anonymous texts to establish historical facts.
https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Ch...3HPB0BXEG1Z&psc=1&refRID=N6RG4S8MQ3HPB0BXEG1Z

Since the Gospels are anonymous that seems to tell us that they are not historically reliable by your standards.

 

[He has Risen!]

Since the Gospels are anonymous that seems to tell us that they are not historically reliable by your standards.

Please re-read my post before you post again...please Sub Zone...and watch the video by the former atheist and cold case detective J. Warner Wallace...please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please re-read my post before you post again...please Sub Zone.

Yep, you are right. I misread that.

But you still have the problem of conflating mythical Jesus with historical Jesus. The Gospels are accepted as evidence that Jesus existed, but not much more. The errors in them clearly tell us that parts of the story were mythical.

So, Abraham Lincoln, President during the Civil War which resulted with the end of slavery in the south, factual.

Abraham Lincoln, killer of vampires, mythical:

 

[He has Risen!]

Yep, you are right. I misread that.

But you still have the problem of conflating mythical Jesus with historical Jesus. The Gospels are accepted as evidence that Jesus existed, but not much more. The errors in them clearly tell us that parts of the story were mythical.

So, Abraham Lincoln, President during the Civil War which resulted with the end of slavery in the south, factual.

Abraham Lincoln, killer of vampires, mythical:

You didn't watch and listen to what the former atheist and cold case detective J. Warner Wallace said, did you? Why do you think I am posting these resources for everyone? I understand your position, but will you even attempt to take an honest look at the resources I have given in defense of my position? You have posed a straw man in your Lincoln Vampire analogy...

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't watch and listen to what the former atheist and cold case detective J. Warner Wallace said, did you? Why do you think I am posting these resources for everyone? I understand your position, but will you even attempt to take an honest look at the resources I have given in defense of my position? You have posed a straw man in your Lincoln Vampire analogy...

Nope, not a strawman. Your source is far from reliable. Why would anyone pay any attention to it?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

"He has Risen". Like most presuppositional apologetics, you tend to hide behind many preselected creationist religious sites. You let the sites do all the talking for you. You don't even have to understand the sites, just as long as someone with letters, can speak for you. If you did understood the sites you posite, you would be able to critically analyze and explain the evidence the present, to supports their train of logic and conclusion. You can do neither, except keep redirecting our inquiries back to the sites, or another site. Can't you make your own argument, using your own words? We can't argue with internet sites, videos, or citations. They don't respond back, and their opinions are not evidence. Just another distraction strategy to avoid your burden of proof. Okay, all of science is wrong, now support your own argument.

Subduction Zone has stated clearly, there is a big difference between a historical Jesus, and a Jesus that is a Son of a God. Even if we stipulated that there may have existed some person, with two fathers(carpenter and a Jewish Priest) named Jesus, there is still NO objective evidence to suggest that this same person is the Son of a God. There could have been many Jewish people named Jesus. Also, since life expectancy was in the 30's, I doubt if any of the apostles were around long enough to write the Gospels. They would have been between 90 -105 years old. So, what is your evidence to suggest that this Historical Jesus was the Son of a God? Or, are we just headed down the road to another fallacy?

 

[He has Risen!]

"He has Risen". Like most presuppositional apologetics, you tend to hide behind many preselected creationist religious sites. You let the sites do all the talking for you. You don't even have to understand the sites, just as long as someone with letters, can speak for you. If you did understood the sites you posite, you would be able to critically analyze and explain the evidence the present, to supports their train of logic and conclusion. You can do neither, except keep redirecting our inquiries back to the sites, or another site. Can't you make your own argument, using your own words? We can't argue with internet sites, videos, or citations. They don't respond back, and their opinions are not evidence. Just another distraction strategy to avoid your burden of proof. Okay, all of science is wrong, now support your own argument.

Subduction Zone has stated clearly, there is a big difference between a historical Jesus, and a Jesus that is a Son of a God. Even if we stipulated that there may have existed some person, with two fathers(carpenter and a Jewish Priest) named Jesus, there is still NO objective evidence to suggest that this same person is the Son of a God. There could have been many Jewish people named Jesus. Also, since life expectancy was in the 30's, I doubt if any of the apostles were around long enough to write the Gospels. They would have been between 90 -105 years old. So, what is your evidence to suggest that this Historical Jesus was the Son of a God? Or, are we just headed down the road to another fallacy?

Eye witness testimony. Take a look at the video link that the former atheist and cold case detective J. Warner Wallace said. If you do maybe you can better understand the case for old written records of eyewitness testimony, after all he is a COLD CASE DETECTIVE!

PS Your first line in your post/response to me is like this cartoon below...

 

[He has Risen!]

Nope, not a strawman. Your source is far from reliable. Why would anyone pay any attention to it?

Now that is an ad hominem fallacy to say that I would use something that is not reliable, how is it not reliable?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am just re-posting this with some new information to help some people here to better understand what we mean when we talk about the historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts...
Author:

Mathew
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180

Mark
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-60
Early Identification: Papias A.D.140, Irenaeus A.D.180

Luke
Date written: Gospel A.D.60-80, Acts A.D.63-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

John
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-85,1John A.D.70-100, 2John A.D.85-95, 3John A.D.85-95, Revelation A.D.69-95

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Paul
Date written: Romans 57 A.D., 1Corinthians A.D.55, 2Corinthians A.D.55, Galatians A.D.48- 53, Ephesians A.D.60, Philippians A.D.61, Colossians A.D.60, 1Thessalonians A.D.51, 2Thessalonians A.D.51-52, 1Timothy A.D.64, 2Timothy A.D.66-67, Titus A.D.63-65, Philemon A.D.60

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

James
Date written: James A.D.50

Peter
Date written: 1Peter A.D.60-64, 2Peter A.D.65-68

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340

Jude
Date written: Jude A.D.65-80

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340, Athanasius A.D.298-373, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Hebrews
Date written: Hebrews A.D.67-70
Early Identification: Tertullian A.D.155-222


(PS I will be adding more information to this and repost it again with additions as I have the time, thank you for your patience in this regards)
Book Sources:
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Vol.1, The Teachings of the Church Fathers (chap.6) by John Willis (this book is a great resource), The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce, Zondervan NIV Study Bible

Internet Sources for your convenience:
Intro to Luke
The Muratorian Fragment
Sinai Palimpsests Processed Images
ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts
Manuscripts - CSNTM
Manuscript P52 - CSNTM

And as already pointed out your dates are off. They are not the dates that are accepted by serious Bible scholars today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that is an ad hominem fallacy to say that I would use something that is not reliable, how is it not reliable?
View attachment 27031

No, It is an observation. Your source is not a scholar, it is a person that applied bad reason to a problem.

But go ahead, tells us his reasons for his beliefs and I will explain what are wrong with them. If you use a source you need to be able to find reliable sources. Apologists are practically never reliable sources. Far too many of them tend to lie to support the Bible instead of accepting its flaws.

 

[He has Risen!]

No, It is an observation. Your source is not a scholar, it is a person that applied bad reason to a problem.

But go ahead, tells us his reasons for his beliefs and I will explain what are wrong with them. If you use a source you need to be able to find reliable sources. Apologists are practically never reliable sources. Far too many of them tend to lie to support the Bible instead of accepting its flaws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you can't support your claims at all? Then why post them?