Abiogenesis and a question for Christian creationists

[dyanaprajna2011]

Science teaches us that life is composed at a basic level of amino acids, which are themselves not living. Amino acids are made up primarily of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. These are the most basics elements of life.

Christian creationism teaches us that humans are made from the dirt of the earth, which is primarily made up of silicon.

Silicon makes up less than 1 % of the human chemical makeup.

If creationism were true, wouldn't the most basic chemical found in humans be silicon? But instead, we find that humans are made up primarily of the main chemicals in amino acids: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen.

How do creationists reconcile this?

 

[McBell]

You are looking at the evidence all wrong.
not to mention there are problems with Carbon14 dating.
and with evolution being a complete scam with anyone going against it being ousted...

 

[Pegg]

Science teaches us that life is composed at a basic level of amino acids, which are themselves not living. Amino acids are made up primarily of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. These are the most basics elements of life.

Christian creationism teaches us that humans are made from the dirt of the earth, which is primarily made up of silicon.

Silicon makes up less than 1 % of the human chemical makeup.

If creationism were true, wouldn't the most basic chemical found in humans be silicon? But instead, we find that humans are made up primarily of the main chemicals in amino acids: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen.

How do creationists reconcile this?

Ah, i think soil is made from more then just silicon.

I mean, if that were the case, then how do plants grow in it? And when you buy a bag of compost, its not a bag of silicon.

 

[Parsimony]

Let's be realistic, even if dirt had all of the necessary elements in the right proportions required to create a human being, it would still take a supernatural event to combine it all in the correct way in the span of a single day to create said human.

I mean, if that were the case, then how do plants grow in it?

They get their carbon from carbon dioxide in the air.

 

[Thana]

KJB -
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.

Obviously we're not dirt people.
And dust of the ground could mean multiple things and multiple ingredients.

Then again, We're talking about God.
If anyone could make people out of dirt, It would be Him.

 

[Skwim]

How do creationists reconcile this?

Simply; with a god who has the ability to do anything reconciliation is not required. If the earth was nothing but an enormous sphere of Silly Putty (essentially a mix of white glue (polyvinyl acetate) and starch (polysaccharide, a chain of many glucose molecules)) supposedly he could still create flesh and bone unicorns or Bloodflowers, venom spitting flowers from the video game Metroid Prime. "God Did It" is all the explanation that's necessary.

 

[Sees]

I'm surprised not many would just say creation accounts are poetic mythology using allegory, symbolism, etc.

I don't understand why it scares some believers personally.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Ah, i think soil is made from more then just silicon.

I mean, if that were the case, then how do plants grow in it? And when you buy a bag of compost, its not a bag of silicon.

It is more than just silicon, but silicon is the primary element. Plants grow in it because some types hold nitrogen well, but plants aren't made of dirt; those are two completely separate things. The Bible doesn't say man was grown in dirt, but made from dirt.

Obviously we're not dirt people.
And dust of the ground could mean multiple things and multiple ingredients.

Then again, We're talking about God.
If anyone could make people out of dirt, It would be Him.

Simply; with a god who has the ability to do anything reconciliation is not required. If the earth was nothing but an enormous sphere of Silly Putty (essentially a mix of white glue (polyvinyl acetate) and starch (polysaccharide, a chain of many glucose molecules)) supposedly he could still create flesh and bone unicorns or Bloodflowers, venom spitting flowers from the video game Metroid Prime. "God Did It" is all the explanation that's necessary.

Ah, I see.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How do creationists reconcile this?

Reconciliation isn't a necessity when you can just throw out and ignore any information which isn't compatible with your pre-established and inviolate conclusions.

 

[Boyd]

Science teaches us that life is composed at a basic level of amino acids, which are themselves not living. Amino acids are made up primarily of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. These are the most basics elements of life.

Christian creationism teaches us that humans are made from the dirt of the earth, which is primarily made up of silicon.

Silicon makes up less than 1 % of the human chemical makeup.

If creationism were true, wouldn't the most basic chemical found in humans be silicon? But instead, we find that humans are made up primarily of the main chemicals in amino acids: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen.

How do creationists reconcile this?

Does Christian creationism teach that humans are made from dirt? I'm not sure about that. So I think your argument is faulty there.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Does Christian creationism teach that humans are made from dirt? I'm not sure about that. So I think your argument is faulty there.

They believe the Genesis account literally, so that would include humans being created by the dirt/soil/etc.

 

[idav]

They believe the Genesis account literally, so that would include humans being created by the dirt/soil/etc.

The account also says that god gave the breath of life to adam. Not sure what that would be made of, presumably the same natural elements as everything else.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Science teaches us that life is composed at a basic level of amino acids, which are themselves not living. Amino acids are made up primarily of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. These are the most basics elements of life.

Christian creationism teaches us that humans are made from the dirt of the earth, which is primarily made up of silicon.

Silicon makes up less than 1 % of the human chemical makeup.

If creationism were true, wouldn't the most basic chemical found in humans be silicon? But instead, we find that humans are made up primarily of the main chemicals in amino acids: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen.

How do creationists reconcile this?

Probably the same as they reconcile all the other evidence which contradicts creationism- avoidance, muddying the water, and dropping red herrings like hot cakes.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Science teaches us that life is composed at a basic level of amino acids, which are themselves not living. Amino acids are made up primarily of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. These are the most basics elements of life.

Christian creationism teaches us that humans are made from the dirt of the earth, which is primarily made up of silicon.

Silicon makes up less than 1 % of the human chemical makeup.

If creationism were true, wouldn't the most basic chemical found in humans be silicon? But instead, we find that humans are made up primarily of the main chemicals in amino acids: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen.

How do creationists reconcile this?

Why do we need to?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Why do we need to?

Unless you believe in alchemy, I can't imagine why you wouldn't need to.

Science says the basic building blocks for life are amino acids made up of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. Creationism teaches that man was made from the dirt of the ground, which is primarily made up of silicon. Both can't be right. It's either one or the other.

 

[rusra02]

Abiogenesis theory has no evidence to support it. In the real scientific world, all life comes from previous life. As to the source of life, the Bible gives the correct answer, IMO: "O Jehovah, your loyal love reaches to the heavens...with you is the source of life." (Psalm 36:5,9)

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Abiogenesis theory has no evidence to support it. In the real scientific world, all life comes from previous life. As to the source of life, the Bible gives the correct answer, IMO: "O Jehovah, your loyal love reaches to the heavens...with you is the source of life." (Psalm 36:5,9)

Great. Now, can you answer the OP with something more than "because the bible tells me so?"

 

[Windwalker]

If creationism were true, wouldn't the most basic chemical found in humans be silicon? But instead, we find that humans are made up primarily of the main chemicals in amino acids: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen.

How do creationists reconcile this?

In order to make forms from dirt you must add a sufficient amount of fluid to it, otherwise it's too dry and just crumbles. Therefore, God make a clay-like human form that he then breathed life into to make it animate. And since we see the elements of of the amino acids, the liquid he used was rich in amino acids, perhaps it was his own spittle since amino acids contain the building blocks of life, and God is the life giver.

You see how easy it easy to make mythology scientific?

 

[Thana]

Simply; with a god who has the ability to do anything reconciliation is not required. If the earth was nothing but an enormous sphere of Silly Putty (essentially a mix of white glue (polyvinyl acetate) and starch (polysaccharide, a chain of many glucose molecules)) supposedly he could still create flesh and bone unicorns or Bloodflowers, venom spitting flowers from the video game Metroid Prime. "God Did It" is all the explanation that's necessary.

Great. Now, can you answer the OP with something more than "because the bible tells me so?"

I don't see how 'because the bible tells me so' or 'god did it' is any different to 'because science tells me so' or 'abiogenesis did it'.

The individual can perceive both as being true, one or the other being true or neither.
So why is your belief/opinion more valid than theirs?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I don't see how 'because the bible tells me so' or 'god did it' is any different to 'because science tells me so' or 'abiogenesis did it'.

The individual can perceive both as being true, one or the other being true or neither.
So why is your belief/opinion more valid than theirs?

One is based on logic, reason, observation, and testable data. The other is based on myth and metaphysical speculation. I'd much rather accept something that I can see and feel, over something that I cannot.

Chemistry and biology make much more sense than creationism, even when the specifics of an idea in chemistry and biology can't immediately be known.

Both cannot be true. Either the world was created by a deity in six days, according to it's own laws and powers, or it was evolved over millions of years, based on it's laws. These two are irreconcilable. Which is why I pointed out what I did in the OP; either man was created by a deity out of the dirt of the ground, in which we'd see ourselves made up more of silicon, or abiogenesis is correct, in which we'd see ourselves made up more of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. Creationism is based on a book of religion, abiogenesis is based on chemistry. One is observable and testable, the other isn't. Chemistry isn't based on belief and opinion; creationism is.

And herein lies the fundamental difference. Either creationism is true, or what science tells us about abiogenesis is true. It cannot be both. I asked a simple question in the OP, and have yet to receive an actual answer, only avoidance and questions about why I'm asking in the first place. And this is the mentality and tactic of those who accept creationism. If one cannot answer the question, fine, but don't judge me for asking, or expect me to believe something when I have unanswered questions about the topic.