Every living entity comes from another living entity

[PolyHedral]

BTW, the coherence of Earth proceeds the "finishing" of the Sun by several million years. That's not a "day."

When one looks at Genesis you have to realise the audience it is intended for.

I don't actually care. This is supposed to be the immaculate, perfect Word of God. Are you saying God can't communicate astronomy?

 

[I-Ching]

Perpetual motion only contradicts our models in that you cannot create energy or destroy it.

On the contrary the fact that you cannot create energy can only lead to the conclusion that there is no beginning but rather it always existed.

Energy is eternal but the quality of energy decreases. This is called entropy. It is a one-way process, which means there must have been a beginning.

Perpetual motion is a demonstration of entropy. It is a universal principle not simply a problem with "our models".

 

[I-Ching]

Well, now you're arguing things that are demonstrably false. There may be a gap at abiogenesis for you to try to shove a god into, but the Tree of Life is well-supported.

We evolved from bacteria. This is pretty much as close to scientific fact as you can get. Is bacteria "sentient"?

I deny that we evolved from bacteria. I also deny that the tree of life is well supported. Maybe for primates it looks well supported (since primates look fairly similar anyway) but for other species it is not. Perhaps you could explain how whales evolved from seals. Where are the intermediate species. Surely nature can support big seals and small whales? How did giraffes evolve from horses? Are there no leaves in the middle of the tree? Why are there no giraffes with short necks and horses with long necks?

There is also large body evidence that human beings have been on this planet for millennia as given in this book Hidden History of the Human Race

There is also the fact that many of the species are clearly intelligently designed such as bacterial flagella, it not possible for a mechanism similar to outboard motor to evolve in successive steps, it either works or it doesn't. The cell itself, DNA are all evidence for intelligent design. We ourselves with all our intelligence can't manufacture one cell and yet we foolishly think that such a thing could just come about by accident.

 

[I-Ching]

When one looks at Genesis you have to realise the audience it is intended for. If you took the most learned man from 5000 years ago and gave him all the time in the world he would not understand one bit of what we are arguing about.

Why not follow a scripture that is intended for advanced cultures like the Vedas, rather than following one intended for barbarians. I don't have to interpret the Vedas, it's meaning is clear and scientific(in the real sense).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I deny that we evolved from bacteria. I also deny that the tree of life is well supported. Maybe for primates it looks well supported (since primates look fairly similar anyway)

Do you honestly believe that the tree of life is based on and supported primarily by what species LOOK the same? You cannot possibly be that ill informed about biology.

but for other species it is not. Perhaps you could explain how whales evolved from seals. Where are the intermediate species.

Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You obviously didn't even bother looking.

Surely nature can support big seals and small whales? How did giraffes evolve from horses?

They didn't. They evolved from antelope-like mammals around 30-50 million years ago. Clearly, this is another fact you didn't even bother checking.

Are there no leaves in the middle of the tree? Why are there no giraffes with short necks and horses with long necks?

Putting aside the fact that giraffes did not evolve from horses, this is kind of like asking "if this apple came from a tree, why aren't there any branches growing out of it?"

There is also large body evidence that human beings have been on this planet for millennia as given in this book Hidden History of the Human Race

Cremo is a hack.

There is also the fact that many of the species are clearly intelligently designed such as bacterial flagella,

A bacterial flagella is not a species. It's a kind bacterial motor - the "tail" like protrusion that extends out of the back of a sperm cell. Once again, you demonstrate that you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. You haven't even done the slightest bit of research, and yet you're willing to take the words of quacks like Cremo at face value. It makes me wonder if you're just denying any facts that contradict your preconceived notions and leaping on any that support them, without even the slightest bit of effort put into finding out their actual basis.

it not possible for a mechanism similar to outboard motor to evolve in successive steps, it either works or it doesn't.

This has already been disproven. We took the flagellum apart and discovered it could easily function as a type 3 secretory system.

The cell itself, DNA are all evidence for intelligent design.

Total nonsense.

We ourselves with all our intelligence can't manufacture one cell and yet we foolishly think that such a thing could just come about by accident.

It didn't come about "by accident". It most likely came about after millions of years of chemical activity in a specific and often changing environment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When one looks at Genesis you have to realise the audience it is intended for.

Wait... so was the whole Bible not intended for us today, or only parts of it? Which other parts of the Bible weren't intended for us?

If you took the most learned man from 5000 years ago and gave him all the time in the world he would not understand one bit of what we are arguing about.

So? Same would go for a small child today, but still, I can explain to her in simple words and concepts the general idea of how the world came to be. "Dumbing it down" doesn't mean you have to lie.

Verse 16 tells us God made the Sun, Moon and stars on the fourth "day." Most young-earth creationists focus on the English translation and interpret this verse to mean God created the Sun and Moon that instant. The Hebrew does not support that interpretation. The Hebrew word for "made" (asah) refers to an action completed in the past.7 Thus, the verse is correctly rendered "God had made" rather than "God made." This indicates God "had made" the Sun, Moon and stars earlier than the fourth "day."

That's a rather... um... creative interpretation. The Genesis creation account generally follows this format: "God did X, God did Y, God did Z; this was the nth day." The way it's laid out, it doesn't make sense to decide that the events described didn't happen on the "day" that they're given on.

8
This view of the fourth "day" has broad support. For example, Gleason Archer, one of the foremost evangelical Hebrew scholars, states: "[Verse 16] should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day …9 Likewise, Protestant theologian Wayne Grudem states: "[Verse 16] Can be taken as perfects indicating what God had done before … This view would imply that God had made the sun, moon, and stars earlier …"10
So, when were the Sun, Moon and stars created? Genesis 1:1 tells us, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The Hebrew phrase "the heavens and the earth" (hashamayim we ha' erets) refers to the entire universe, entire creation and everything that can be seen or has physical existence.11 This indicates the heavenly bodies—the Earth, Sun, Moon, stars and other planets—were created "in the beginning" prior to the six creation "days."

Actually, I believe that "God created the heavens and the earth" refers to either the creation of two separate domains (i.e. "the heavens", the home of the angels and "the earth", the home of man) rather than specific objects within those domains, or the creation of the Firmament: the dome of the sky, within which the Sun, Moon and stars were later placed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I deny that we evolved from bacteria. I also deny that the tree of life is well supported.

Oh dear.

Maybe for primates it looks well supported (since primates look fairly similar anyway) but for other species it is not. Perhaps you could explain how whales evolved from seals. Where are the intermediate species. Surely nature can support big seals and small whales?

They didn't evolve from seals, but if you want to see the chain that whales went through while evolving from land animals to their current forms, here's a good article: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

How did giraffes evolve from horses? Are there no leaves in the middle of the tree?

Are all the trees one height on your planet?

Why are there no giraffes with short necks and horses with long necks?

There were other species of giraffe, but all but one is now extinct. However, the giraffe is closely related to the Okapi, another member of the family Giraffidae, which does have a short neck.

There is also the fact that many of the species are clearly intelligently designed such as bacterial flagella, it not possible for a mechanism similar to outboard motor to evolve in successive steps, it either works or it doesn't.

The bacterial flagellum? Really?

CB200.1: Bacterial flagella and Irreducibly Complexity

The cell itself, DNA are all evidence for intelligent design.

No, they're not. There's no such thing as "evidence for intelligent design". Intelligent design is an a priori inference; it doesn't work as a deduction from evidence.

We ourselves with all our intelligence can't manufacture one cell and yet we foolishly think that such a thing could just come about by accident.

I know a fair bit of stormwater management, but I couldn't figure out a way to effectively drain a third of a continent. Should we also assume that God dug the Mississippi watershed with his own hands?

 

[PolyHedral]

No, they're not. There's no such thing as "evidence for intelligent design". Intelligent design is an a priori inference; it doesn't work as a deduction from evidence.

Doesn't it, in principle? If you could find a suitably bizarre/impossible creature, couldn't you justifiably say it was designed?

 

[Sunstone]

According to the "scientists" life comes from matter. I would like to know what evidence they have? I believe that no such living entity has ever been found naturally nor have they ever been able to produce one artificially. Although every living entity ever observed comes from another living entity, still they insist that live can emerge from matter. Quite strange.

So, you've never been able to find naturally a living thing that is made of matter? And you were looking...how?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Doesn't it, in principle? If you could find a suitably bizarre/impossible creature, couldn't you justifiably say it was designed?

No, you couldn't.

For one thing, there's always the possibility of "scaffolding", or for some of the parts that were required for the creature/trait/whatever to evolve have themselves been eliminated by later evolution.

For another, inferring that a creature/trait/whatever was designed not only requires you to exhaustively determine that it was impossible for any known natural mechanism to create the trait, it also requires you to conclude that it would be impossible by any unknown natural mechanism as well. IOW, you have to intimately know things you know nothing about.

Unless you have direct evidence that an intelligent designer actually did design a thing (which would have to be something like an affadavit from God, not just some inference from complexity), the best you can ever do is to say "we don't know how this happened".

 

[Gunfingers]

Even if you could find an organism that actually could not have evolved, all you would have evidence of is that that creature did not evolve. It would be a smidge impetuous to assume based on that that it must have been specially created by *insert preferred divine entity here* when there are natural explanations, anything from some mad scientist's creation to an extraterrestrial, that could explain it.

 

[PolyHedral]

Even if you could find an organism that actually could not have evolved, all you would have evidence of is that that creature did not evolve. It would be a smidge impetuous to assume based on that that it must have been specially created by *insert preferred divine entity here* when there are natural explanations, anything from some mad scientist's creation to an extraterrestrial, that could explain it.

You couldn't make the jump "$diety did it!", true, but the other candidates do have some manner of intelligence, hence "intelligent" design.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You couldn't make the jump "$diety did it!", true, but the other candidates do have some manner of intelligence, hence "intelligent" design.

But those aren't the only candidates. You also have the possibility of "unknown natural phenomenon 'X' did it!"

 

[PolyHedral]

But those aren't the only candidates. You also have the possibility of "unknown natural phenomenon 'X' did it!"

Would it actually be more rational to say, "A completely unknown natural phenomena we haven't seen any evidence of until now did it," vs. "A mad scientist did it?" (Assuming a mad scientist doing it is actually viable.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would it actually be more rational to say, "A completely unknown natural phenomena we haven't seen any evidence of until now did it," vs. "A mad scientist did it?" (Assuming a mad scientist doing it is actually viable.)

That depends. My point is just that the conclusion "we don't know what did this" can often be rational, but the conclusion "we don't know what did this... but we know that whatever did it is intelligent" is inherently contradictory and therefore irrational.

ID would only become a rational conclusion when we have a "fingerprint" for the intelligent designer in question that we can match up against the thing we think may have been designed. This means knowing something about this designer. ID can't be a position arrived at from ignorance; the designer has to stand up on his own merits.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

According to the "scientists" life comes from matter. I would like to know what evidence they have? I believe that no such living entity has ever been found naturally nor have they ever been able to produce one artificially. Although every living entity ever observed comes from another living entity, still they insist that live can emerge from matter. Quite strange.

Ah, I see your problem. You need to start reading things written by scientists, and stop reading stuff written by "scientists."

 

[idea]

According to the "scientists" life comes from matter. I would like to know what evidence they have? I believe that no such living entity has ever been found naturally nor have they ever been able to produce one artificially. Although every living entity ever observed comes from another living entity, still they insist that live can emerge from matter. Quite strange.

not all scientists!

you might enjoy reading some of the work around "panspermia" - specifically, strong panspermia...

here is a site for you: COSMIC ANCESTRY: The modern version of panspermia. by Brig Klyce

I agree, life is more than just matter.... it's the free-will / agency / conscience / ability to think / create - unpredictable nature of it that points to something more imo. Call it mind/conscience/intelligence/spirit - call it what you want. whatever you call it, it is a beautiful thing.

 

[McBell]

Every living entity comes from another living entity

So is god a living entity that came from another living entity or is god dead?

 

[idea]

So is god a living entity that came from another living entity or is god dead?

I do not believe that life came from something dead because I do not think that life has a beginning - I view the Spirit as being eternal - with no beginning and no end - conservation of mass/energy/spirit - I believe that everything which now is, always was, and always will be, changing form, but that everything is eternal, nothing comes from nothing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Adam and Eve story:

There is an interesting ancient account of Adam and Eve which is not currently in the Bible, but pertains to this thread I think...
It is said that before Adam and Eve left the garden of Eden God let them each choose one thing to take with them before they left. In a moment, Adam started running around quickly gathering up all the seeds he could so that he be the "provider" and farm food for his family. Eve did not just go grab something - she sat and thought and thought. As a mother, it would be her job to educate the next generation, what could she take that would teach them about what life could be? What part of "Eden" could she take that they would understand? After much thought, she took a beehive - for bees represent "life from life". We kill to live - we kill plants and animals and eat them... bees do not. Rather than feeding off of death, bees feed off life - they pollinate flowers and produce life from life. And so Eve brought with her a beehive...



anyways, I like Eve's idea of what it means to gain life from life...

 

[crocusj]

So is god a living entity that came from another living entity or is god dead?

The idea of there having been a creator god who is now dead is bizarrely scary!