Abiogenesis and a question for Christian creationists

[McBell]

Abiogenesis theory has no evidence to support it.

Bold faced lie.
now if you reword it something like: Abiogenesis does not have evidence i will accept to support it.

In the real scientific world, all life comes from previous life.

Except your deity, right?
Thus making this comment by you null and void, by you.

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)

I am not interested in your merry-go-round reasoning.

 

[Thana]

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.

Religion is not the opposition of logic, reason or observation.
This is a misconception that is thrown around a lot, as if saying religion is unreasonable will make it true. Unfortunately that is not how the world works.

I'll concede it is not testable per se, But I suppose the hundreds of thousands of accounts of spiritual experience and millions of believers can be roughly thrown into that category if one chooses to see it that way.

You do realize that people can see, feel and experience God?
Again, Just because you don't believe or don't want to believe it does not make you right.

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.

I didn't realize chemistry and biology were against religion?
I believe in the validity of chemistry and biology and I'm still a Christain.
Fancy that.

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.

Okay firstly, I quoted the actual scripture that has only one translation that says soil, The rest say dust of the ground. That is not necessarily dirt and is not necessarily the only component.
You're just running with your dirt theory.

Secondly, Science and religion are not enemies.

Creation is not a theory to most believers, It's fact.
Yes we have belief, But that does not diminish it's reality.
Just as you believe in abiogenesis, I believe in God.
Both can be proven true or false to the individual.

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.

Just because you don't like the answer, Doesn't mean it's not a valid answer.
It all comes full circle, Any question or issue or whatever you have with religion, Will eventually come down to 'God did it'.

The Bible is not a detailed account of every action or thought or moment in time.
It has plenty of wiggle room.

I'm not judging you.
You asked, You got answers.
It's not anyone's fault that you just don't like/can't understand/refuse to acknowledge the answers you're given.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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'.

Well, let's take a look-

"Because the Bible tells me so"- you're saying that X is the case because a book written several thousands of years ago by men with some very weird ideas about how the world works, who are unaware of most of the important facts regarding the natural world we now know, says it is. In other words, not a credible source at all.

"Because science tells me so"- you're saying that X is the case because our most successful explanatory endeavor (empirical science) has inferred or concluded it is so from observable evidence. In other words, a pretty credible source.

Hmm, not looking the same at all. Let's look at the other two-

"God did it"- since God (theos) is "the greatest mystery", and is a larger unknown than the phenomenon we're trying to explain, "God did it" merely begs the question rather than answering it. In short, IF explanations are propositional AND explanations answer questions rather than beg them AND if God is the ultimate mystery, then "God did it" does not explain why anything happens, and is vacuous as an explanation.

"Abiogenesis did it"- abiogenesis being a concretely defined process, which would be in principle observable AND have observable/falsifiable consequences, it is substantive and NOT question-begging; it may be false, but it is not a pseudo-explanation as "God did it" is.

So, to wit, there couldn't be a larger difference between saying "God did it" and "abiogenesis did it", or saying you believe X "because the Bible says so" and saying you believe X "because science says so".

 

[Boyd]

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

Are you sure? Because there are two accounts, one which says that G-d created humans through simply speaking.

Also, the second account, humans were created from dust, and the spirit of G-d, which was breathed into them. So not simply dirt.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Are you sure? Because there are two accounts, one which says that G-d created humans through simply speaking.

Also, the second account, humans were created from dust, and the spirit of G-d, which was breathed into them. So not simply dirt.

Every sermon I ever heard, every creationist teaching I've read, says man was created out of dirt. And while it does say god breathed into man "the breath of life" (presumably the spirit), the physical composition was still dirt.

 

[Parsimony]

Whether a literal interpretation says that God spoke man into existence or created him from clay/dirt/dust/soil, it seems that either scenario is not scientifically testable and therefore cannot be incorporated into a scientific model of reality. What evidence would such an event leave behind that would lend itself towards testing?

 

[McBell]

Whether a literal interpretation says that God spoke man into existence or created him from clay/dirt/dust/soil, it seems that either scenario is not scientifically testable and therefore cannot be incorporated into a scientific model of reality. What evidence would such an event leave behind that would lend itself towards testing?

um...
What humans are made of?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I just take "dust of the ground" as a metaphor for the physical elements.

 

[Parsimony]

um...
What humans are made of?

I'm sure the implicit assumption is that God would have supernaturally changed the composition of the dust into whatever chemicals were necessary for our life functions. At least that's what I imagine the creationists would say.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Whether a literal interpretation says that God spoke man into existence or created him from clay/dirt/dust/soil, it seems that either scenario is not scientifically testable and therefore cannot be incorporated into a scientific model of reality. What evidence would such an event leave behind that would lend itself towards testing?

um...
What humans are made of?

Hence, why I asked why we don't see more silicon in the human makeup. That's what I would expect to find.

 

[Boyd]

Every sermon I ever heard, every creationist teaching I've read, says man was created out of dirt. And while it does say god breathed into man "the breath of life" (presumably the spirit), the physical composition was still dirt.

Dust. It is a minor thing, but there is a difference. And who says that that breath of G-d wouldn't change the composition? Surely, if we take it literally, one's breath would include other particles. There would be some moisture, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and whatever else G-d's breath is composed of. So yes, it would change the physical composition of the dust.

And I would suggest that having read some teachings, and attending a few sermons does not give a complete view of creationism. I haven't attended a Christian service in many years, but growing up, the creation story I remember being taught is G-d bringing humans to life through speech, as in the first creation story.

 

[Skwim]

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'.

Because science is based on independently verifiable conclusions as to how our world operates. Plus, there is a huge consensus among those schooled in the evidence that these conclusions are reasonable and convincing. "Because the bible tells me so" or "god did it" are mere assertions, based on the say-so of those committed to a religious philosophy; essentially no different than an assertion that there IS a man in the Moon because I, or X, say so.

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?

Validity (validation) is a notion based on the strengths of logic. It prevents one from asserting to be true anything that doesn't follow from its premises. A statement is valid if and only if its conclusion is logically entailed by its premises. And these premises are based on empirical evidence, and empirical evidence alone. And I consider this a far more convincing basis for belief than the faith that under-girds religious belief. Religious beliefs are based on the unverifiable claims; they rely solely on trust in the claimant, and nothing more.

Want to believe the earth was formed 6,000 years ago because a single book says so? Fine. For myself, I find the consensus of science, and its methods of validation, to be more persuasive.

 

[idea]

Validity (validation) is a notion based on the strengths of logic. It prevents one from asserting to be true anything that doesn't follow from its premises. A statement is valid if and only if its conclusion is logically entailed by its premises. And these premises are based on empirical evidence, and empirical evidence alone. And I consider this a far more convincing basis for belief than the faith that under-girds religious belief. Religious beliefs are based on the unverifiable claims; they rely solely on trust in the claimant, and nothing more.

.

Validity is based on experience and logic, and religious beliefs are based on the same. Most of the religious people I know have beliefs based on personal spiritual experiences - many of these experiences are validated by others, "where two or three are gathered together". We rely on the fruits of the work, we rely on one another, and we rely on a real God who communicates with those who listen.

 

[Skwim]

Validity is based on experience and logic, and religious beliefs are based on the same.

Consider:

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.
​

So where is the "experience" that Socrates is a cup? There isn't any, yet the "argument" is valid. So a valid conclusion may or may not contain "experience" (by which I assume you mean "fact" or some such notion). EVIDENCE is critical to the truth of any conclusion. Taking a spiritual experience that Socrates is a cup as reliable evidence is certainly your choice, but not one I'd make.

Most of the religious people I know have beliefs based on personal spiritual experiences - many of these experiences are validated by others, "where two or three are gathered together". We rely on the fruits of the work, we rely on one another, and we rely on a real God who communicates with those who listen.

Good for you, but experience is more often subjective than objective. And as I implied, subjective experiences don't carry the certitude objective experiences do. Want to believe, even base your faith on, the spiritual revelations related by others? Fine. I'll pass. I'd rather put my trust in flying in the sciences that under-gird avionics than in any claim that I could also fly by flapping my arms as I jump off a cliff, just because some spiritual guru had such a revelation.

 

[McBell]

Validity is based on experience and logic, and religious beliefs are based on the same. Most of the religious people I know have beliefs based on personal spiritual experiences - many of these experiences are validated by others, "where two or three are gathered together". We rely on the fruits of the work, we rely on one another, and we rely on a real God who communicates with those who listen.

If "validity" is nothing more than two or three people agreeing on something....

So, based upon your above logic, when there are more Muslims than Christians in the world, does Islam replace Christianity as the most "valid" religion?

If not, why not?

 

[Sapiens]

Validity is based on experience and logic,

So far so good.

and religious beliefs are based on the same.

That's where you go south. Religious beliefs are rarely, if ever, based on logic, rather they are based on flights of fancy, tales of pixies and such that rely on the supernatural, which (by definition) is illogical.

Most of the religious people I know have beliefs based on personal spiritual experiences - many of these experiences are validated by others, "where two or three are gathered together". We rely on the fruits of the work, we rely on one another, and we rely on a real God who communicates with those who listen.

Yeah, so what? The idea that "two or three are gathered together" is at the level of scientific validation is laughable.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Like others have suggested, when you involve magical thinking, there's no solid explanation to be had, simply because you can solve everything and any problem with a little swish and swosh with a wand.

I wonder more why God had to create man to have amino acids, fatty acids, etc, from dirt when plants and animals already were created with the proper contents. It would have been far easier to create a man from animal parts. "And then God took a bunch of cows and created man." Is a more efficient method. LOL!

I'm currently in nutrition class, and I tell you, it's very interesting with all these little things here and there that we need. Not only the amino acids, but lipids, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, water, and oxygen (and sunlight too). It's extremely complex. And it's interesting that we need foreign bacteria in our colon to allow us certain uptakes of nutrition too. The wrong bacteria or lack of bacteria might be one of the causes to obesity today, not just sugar. It's not the fat, strangely enough, we might actually be hurting ourselves not eating enough fat (or the right kind). The gut bacteria contain at least 10 times more genetic code than we do, and have specialized in breaking down nutrient rich food on levels we can't. Why did God put them there?

On another note, why do we need an immune system? Why do we need zinc to have an immune system? Did God create that in Eden before virus and infections came to be from the fall? He knew and prepared a defense system before A&E even had committed the sin? Or did God have a second creation process? Seriously, the more you learn about how we work biologically, and how the world work naturally, the more crazy it is to think the Genesis would be a literal, historical, or scientific story. If it was scientific, there's a lot it didn't mention or explain.

 

[Ouroboros]

Every sermon I ever heard, every creationist teaching I've read, says man was created out of dirt. And while it does say god breathed into man "the breath of life" (presumably the spirit), the physical composition was still dirt.

One interesting hypothesis is that the Genesis story originated from tribes that lived in very dry (dust filled) lands, where they had to live and fight against the forces of nature, and dust/dirt was the closest they could get to explain their existence.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Be that as it may, you still can't make fully-adult anatomical humans out of dusts, soil or clay.

And the whole humans being created out of earth, come originally from the Sumerians (eg. Eridu Genesis , Enki and Ninhursag, and the Song of the Hoe), and the Akkadians (Epic of Atrahasis, and Epic of Gilgamesh), and Babylonians (Epic of Gilgamesh).

Ancient Israelites had a habit of borrowing ideas from the Mesopotamians, like the Flood story of Noah, can be found in the Sumerian Eridu Genesis, the Akkadian-Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh.

The story of Eden with a talking serpent, have precedences in the Sumerian Gilgamesh and the Netherworld, and the Old Babylonian Epic of Etana.

But no matter what, the earth (whether it be dust, soil, or clay) can't made into any living animal or human.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm sure the implicit assumption is that God would have supernaturally changed the composition of the dust into whatever chemicals were necessary for our life functions. At least that's what I imagine the creationists would say.

Yup. God only need to do a little Dumbledore magic and transform matter by reorganizing the quarks.

My beef with it is rather, why go through such a hassle? What's the point? Animals already had the complete biochemical setup. And the animals were "created" by God commanding the earth to bring forth (create for him) the species, so why not take one of those animals and redesign it as a man instead? Much simpler. The components already there. So clearly, the idea here in the story is that "dirt" (whatever composition it would have) is an important detail. Why else would God have to do a separate re-design of matter into the same kind of bio-matter that he already had available? It's like Microsoft reinventing TCP/IP so they can create their own Internet for the purpose of selling Windows with the regular/standard Internet on it. We do eat animals and plants and transform them to our own bodies, so what would the point be to re-create it another way?