Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

[Willamena]

oh no....that would cover and entire field of notions.

I don't confuse dead things with the living.

"Living" and "dead" are illusion.

 

[Thief]

"Living" and "dead" are illusion.

I don't think I can go that far.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is only an assumption, that distorts the evidence:
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/genetics-research-confirms-biblical-timeline/

It's the result of a lot of research and testing. And that will continue.

If anything distorts the evidence it's healthimpactnews.com

World population studies do not support the current hypothesis that the origin of 'modern' humans began 100,000 years ago, not even 20,000 years; but, rather, are more in line with the Biblical timeline given. Check out the algebraic equations used at the following URL, that agrees with historical world population growth:
www.ldolphin.org/Morris.html

This link doesn't take me anywhere. But I'm guessing it's one of those equations where it's assumed that the human population has always grown at the same steady rate without variation?

The Biblical timeline is nonsense.

(Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude is to decry and discredit, any view that supports the Bible....despite the facts, and common sense. Yes, I said common sense.)

The prevailing attitude is to support things that are verified with evidence. The "Biblical view" that the earth is a few thousand years old is not supported by the evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

but she would be the one not having a navel.....not born of women...

Pardon?

 

[Thief]

Pardon?

so the story goes.....
Adam is a chosen son of God.
living in isolation and walking in the Presence of God.

Adam is then laid to adeep sleep (anesthesia)
a rib is removed (surgery)
the rib is increased to full stature (cloning)
so the clone is female (genetic engineering)

Eve is not born of woman.....she would not have a navel
Adam was given his twin sister for a bride.

 

[SkepticThinker]

so the story goes.....
Adam is a chosen son of God.
living in isolation and walking in the Presence of God.

Adam is then laid to adeep sleep (anesthesia)
a rib is removed (surgery)
the rib is increased to full stature (cloning)
so the clone is female (genetic engineering)

Eve is not born of woman.....she would not have a navel
Adam was given his twin sister for a bride.

I don't know about all that. But I think Mitochondrial Eve would have had a navel.

 

[Thief]

I don't know about all that. But I think Mitochondrial Eve would have had a navel.

and probably did
along with Adam

I don't believe Adam was the first man to walk this earth
he would be the first to walk with God

 

[Parsimony]

and you are not a form of chemistry/energy having intelligence?

Energy itself is not intelligent. I contain energy, but am more than just energy.

 

[Thief]

so the line between life and dead substance is elusive?
and intelligence might not be the litmus test

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It's the result of a lot of research and testing. And that will continue.

If anything distorts the evidence it's healthimpactnews.com
This link doesn't take me anywhere. But I'm guessing it's one of those equations where it's assumed that the human population has always grown at the same steady rate without variation?

The Biblical timeline is nonsense.


The prevailing attitude is to support things that are verified with evidence. The "Biblical view" that the earth is a few thousand years old is not supported by the evidence.

Let me discuss this first:

"The "Biblical view" that the earth is a few thousand years old is not supported by the evidence."

With this, unfortunately, we are dealing with "people's view of what they think the Scriptures are saying."
The Bible itself doesn't indicate those 'days' were literally 24 hrs.each. Moses, who wrote the account, used no definite article in conjunction with "day". This can imply that "yom", the Heb.word for day, can refer to a long period.

And I can provide evidence (that some might consider 'proof'): Each of the six days of creation, each one in Genesis is said to end, right? Yes. But the 7th one, God's rest day, where does the account say it ended? It doesn't!
In fact, in Hebrews chap.4, the Apostle Paul referred to God's Rest Day, in Genesis, and gave indication that God's rest day was still continuing! In his time, over 4,000 years later!

Further evidence: during day 6, Adam was given the time-consuming task of naming all the animals; while doing so, he then got lonely for a mate. God created Eve as a helper, to complement him. All of that would have taken longer than a mere 24 hrs.!

"The prevailing attitude is to support things that are verified with evidence."

No....if the evidence of some event or thing is interpreted in a way that disagrees with the Bible, it automatically gains credibility among scientists (for the most part). If some object is discovered that supports the Scriptures, it is thoroughly tested in an effort to debunk it.....certainly if it's in support of a miraculous event! They just can't let that happen, it will surely be interpreted differently.

BTW, verification comes with proof, which can't be disputed. Evidence does not imply 'proof', only possibilities; That's why, when I see the disputation occurring between scientists over one thing or another, I just shake my head. It happens a lot.

EDIT: I'm sorry the link didn't work. It didn't work for me, either. When I found the site in my history, though, it took me right to it.

2nd EDIT: try this link....http://www.ldolphin.org/morris.html

 

[Etritonakin]

Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

If you walk back the Evolutionary theories to their beginning at some point you have to deal with this question.

Even if that first life in the form of bacteria came from some other planet hitched to an an asteroid or meteor you still have to get to the point of answering the question of how did that organism form.

If you do believe in spontaneous life then please tell us how that happened and evidence for that theory.

If not then please tell us what other mechanism could have produced that first life or theory for how it happened.

This is my discussion so any theory including religious and philisophical will be allowed.

Living things are made from an arrangement of non-living elements.

The properties of those elements allow for physical life forms.

Certain things must happen in a specific order to produce physical life forms from the elements.

It is possible that what was set in motion by the big bang caused things to happen in that specific order -even if God caused the big bang.
It is possible that it required creative action afterward.

However, we know that the same order -or some other specified order -can be the result of intent and action at any point after the formation of the elements, etc.

It is possible that both may be true.

Life in general may happen spontaneously -more correctly, as a result of natural processes -which may have been set in motion by a creator -but specific changes to DNA or the formation of unique life forms can also happen.

 

[Acim]

And I can provide evidence (that some might consider 'proof'): Each of the six days of creation, each one in Genesis is said to end, right? Yes. But the 7th one, God's rest day, where does the account say it ended? It doesn't!
In fact, in Hebrews chap.4, the Apostle Paul referred to God's Rest Day, in Genesis, and gave indication that God's rest day was still continuing! In his time, over 4,000 years later!

I do like this interpretation. While a bit off topic, I actually use similar interpretation with Genesis 2:21 where it says Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam. Where does the account say God caused Adam to awake (or that Adam ever woke up)? It doesn't!

Helps put the rest of the text/narrative in context, methinks.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I do like this interpretation. While a bit off topic, I actually use similar interpretation with Genesis 2:21 where it says Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam. Where does the account say God caused Adam to awake (or that Adam ever woke up)? It doesn't!

Helps put the rest of the text/narrative in context, methinks.

Interesting. I gave a 'like' to your post, although not sure if I agree; the reason being, does it state in other accounts that a person sleeping, was awakened? Is it required, you think, to say that? I was just going on precedent.

I'm interested in what reason do you have for pointing that out, in Genesis 2:21? Looking forward to your reply! Take care.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let me discuss this first:

"The "Biblical view" that the earth is a few thousand years old is not supported by the evidence."

With this, unfortunately, we are dealing with "people's view of what they think the Scriptures are saying."
The Bible itself doesn't indicate those 'days' were literally 24 hrs.each. Moses, who wrote the account, used no definite article in conjunction with "day". This can imply that "yom", the Heb.word for day, can refer to a long period.

And I can provide evidence (that some might consider 'proof'): Each of the six days of creation, each one in Genesis is said to end, right? Yes. But the 7th one, God's rest day, where does the account say it ended? It doesn't!
In fact, in Hebrews chap.4, the Apostle Paul referred to God's Rest Day, in Genesis, and gave indication that God's rest day was still continuing! In his time, over 4,000 years later!

Further evidence: during day 6, Adam was given the time-consuming task of naming all the animals; while doing so, he then got lonely for a mate. God created Eve as a helper, to complement him. All of that would have taken longer than a mere 24 hrs.!

I'm responding to this claim that you made:
"World population studies do not support the current hypothesis that the origin of 'modern' humans began 100,000 years ago, not even 20,000 years; but, rather, are more in line with the Biblical timeline given."

The evidence does not back up your claim.

"The prevailing attitude is to support things that are verified with evidence."

No....if the evidence of some event or thing is interpreted in a way that disagrees with the Bible, it automatically gains credibility among scientists (for the most part). If some object is discovered that supports the Scriptures, it is thoroughly tested in an effort to debunk it.....certainly if it's in support of a miraculous event! They just can't let that happen, it will surely be interpreted differently.

Everything is thoroughly tested in science and everybody is always trying to debunk everybody else's claims, no matter what they may be. That's how it works. It just so happens that science doesn't support the Bible on the age of the earth.

Why should the Bible be considered special and what on earth does it have to do with science? How about we just go out and test the world around us and see what we learn about it?

BTW, verification comes with proof, which can't be disputed. Evidence does not imply 'proof', only possibilities; That's why, when I see the disputation occurring between scientists over one thing or another, I just shake my head. It happens a lot.

Science deals in evidence, rather than proof. Proof is for mathematics.

EDIT: I'm sorry the link didn't work. It didn't work for me, either. When I found the site in my history, though, it took me right to it.

2nd EDIT: try this link....http://www.ldolphin.org/morris.html

No problem. It appears to be what I thought it was.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I'm responding to this claim that you made:
"World population studies do not support the current hypothesis that the origin of 'modern' humans began 100,000 years ago, not even 20,000 years; but, rather, are more in line with the Biblical timeline given."

The evidence does not back up your claim.


Everything is thoroughly tested in science and everybody is always trying to debunk everybody else's claims, no matter what they may be. That's how it works. It just so happens that science doesn't support the Bible on the age of the earth.

Why should the Bible be considered special and what on earth does it have to do with science? How about we just go out and test the world around us and see what we learn about it?


Science deals in evidence, rather than proof. Proof is for mathematics.


No problem. It appears to be what I thought it was.

"It just so happens that science doesn't support the Bible on the age of the earth.

Why should the Bible be considered special....."

I just gave you evidence, from its own pages, that the Bible doesn't teach a literal 6-day creation. So it doesn't deny the current scientific assessment of the age of the planet.

Science does 'deal in proof', too. Archeology many times unearths documents or steles or other objects that prove existence of people or groups that lived in the past. The chronology of events dealing with when they lived may vary, though.

Speaking of mathematics, did you get to the algebra used on the website, in determining when human population must (could) have began? It makes sense.

 

[metis]

The Hebrew word "yom" the vast majority of the time used in Torah does mean day, as in a 24 hour day, but one may take a more liberal interpretation, such as "... a thousand years is like a day in the eye's of God". The implication of how it's used in the creation accounts does seemingly indicate a literal day, however, but then it begs the question as to whether the creation accounts should be taken primarily as allegory. I for one tend to go in that direction because how it is written and what it covers doesn't seem to be an actual accounting of history. If it was, we would expect it to be much more thorough and less poetic.

 

[Acim]

Interesting. I gave a 'like' to your post, although not sure if I agree; the reason being, does it state in other accounts that a person sleeping, was awakened? Is it required, you think, to say that? I was just going on precedent.

I'm interested in what reason do you have for pointing that out, in Genesis 2:21? Looking forward to your reply! Take care.

I don't think it's required to state a person has awakened, once a story says they fell asleep, but generally if something happens in a story with a character while they are asleep/dreaming, a narrative will make it a point to re-establish a waking reality. Genesis does not. Which is my reason for noting it. I do actually interpret the entire narrative around Adam (and arguably all of his descendants) as a dream state that Lord God has induced upon him.

Would say more but feel it is off topic from this thread, though not really off topic with how I understand 'origin of corporeal life.'

I would add just a quick blurb, for the fellow Christian who asked for this response, that I see Jesus as representing both a message and example of how to awake from Adam's dream (nightmare). I don't think of Jesus as the only messenger or example for this.

 

[Parsimony]

so the line between life and dead substance is elusive?

I would say so, yes.

and intelligence might not be the litmus test

It certainly isn't for bacteria.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"It just so happens that science doesn't support the Bible on the age of the earth.

Why should the Bible be considered special....."

I just gave you evidence, from its own pages, that the Bible doesn't teach a literal 6-day creation. So it doesn't deny the current scientific assessment of the age of the planet.

You said this: "World population studies do not support the current hypothesis that the origin of 'modern' humans began 100,000 years ago, not even 20,000 years; but, rather, are more in line with the Biblical timeline given." So you disagree with mainstream science about the age of modern humans, and claim Biblical timelines are correct instead. What Biblical timeline are you referring to? How old does the Bible say modern humans are, in your opinion?

Science does deal 'deal in proof', too. Archeology many times unearths documents or steels or other objects that prove
existence of people or groups that lived in the past. The chronology of events dealing with when they lived may vary, though.

That is evidence that some group of people lived at some point in the past.

Speaking of mathematics, did you get to the algebra used on the website, in determining when human population must (could) have began? It makes sense.

I pointed out the problem I foresaw without it before you posted a usable link.

I wonder why he starts with an initial population of two people. And I wonder why he imagines the growth rate to be constant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Tomorrow evening my wife will light the candles signaling the beginning of Shabbat.

וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת-יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ: כִּי בוֹ שָׁבַת מִכָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים לַעֲשׂוֹת.​

Attempts to distort the meaning of yom to make Genesis appear more reasonable are silly bordering on desperate.