Every living entity comes from another living entity

[I-Ching]

I agree with teh Penguin. You cannot assume anything even a beginning. That is why I don't see much resolution in discussing the beginnings.

To think there is no material beginning is illogical, that would be something like a perpetual motion machine, which impossible because of entropy.

 

[PolyHedral]

To think there is no material beginning is illogical, that would be something like a perpetual motion machine, which impossible because of entropy.

Then we just define "the beginning" as the point of least entropy. Wasn't that simple?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God may be dissimilar is some respects but He is certainly more similar than a blob of dead matter.

Hmm. That seems to me to be a personal aesthetic decision than it is based on objective evidence.

Also, I detect a bit of hubris: we're closer to God than we are to the stuff we're made of? I think this position is fundamentally (and IMO unjustifiably) arrogant.

 

[I-Ching]

Then we just define "the beginning" as the point of least entropy. Wasn't that simple?

Dead matter certainly has no ability to create a state of low entropy

 

[1948_its_happening]

Firstly, what contradiction do you see in scripture and science. Give me just one.

If you want proof that the bible is infact from our creator you need read one book on Jewish prophecy and actual Jewish history. You will be stunned if you take the time.

 

[I-Ching]

Hmm. That seems to me to be a personal aesthetic decision than it is based on objective evidence.

Also, I detect a bit of hubris: we're closer to God than we are to the stuff we're made of? I think this position is fundamentally (and IMO unjustifiably) arrogant.

Living entities are sentient God is sentient. Every sentient being comes from another sentient being. No sentient beings have been observed to emerge from matter.

 

[I-Ching]

Firstly, what contradiction do you see in scripture and science. Give me just one.

If you want proof that the bible is infact from our creator you need read one book on Jewish prophecy and actual Jewish history. You will be stunned if you take the time.

Difficult one that ... lets think ... maybe Genesis

 

[1948_its_happening]

To think there is no material beginning is illogical, that would be something like a perpetual motion machine, which impossible because of entropy.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Living entities are sentient God is sentient. Every sentient being comes from another sentient being. No sentient beings have been observed to emerge from matter.

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"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you want proof that the bible is infact from our creator you need read one book on Jewish prophecy and actual Jewish history. You will be stunned if you take the time.

I've taken the time to look at both. I was less than stunned.

I trust that your book on "actual Jewish history" dealt with the fact that the evidence indicates that the ancient Jews emerged from the indigenous Canaanites and didn't migrate there from Egypt, right?

... Or that, if the Exodus was as large as the Bible claims, that if Moses and his followers stood shoulder-to-shoulder, they would've formed a line long enough to stretch all the way across the Sinai peninsula, which they supposedly wandered for 40 years (leaving no archaeological trace in the process, BTW)?

 

[1948_its_happening]

Ok, what in Genesis contradicts current Scientific models which contradict themselves every 5 years. Give me your favorite.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, what in Genesis contradicts current Scientific models which contradict themselves every 5 years. Give me your favorite.

Well, the idea that plants arose before the Sun existed is a bit of a biggie.

 

[PolyHedral]

Well, the idea that plants arose before the Sun existed is a bit of a biggie.

Also, there are 300,000 years before light exists. It's not the first thing in the universe.

 

[1948_its_happening]

Well, the idea that plants arose before the Sun existed is a bit of a biggie.

Give me the verse so I can explain it in context. I do not recall any mention of the plants coming before the sun. Is not the first act "let there be light".

Which is very accurate seeing as the big bang would have been pure light before it slowed down.

 

[1948_its_happening]

I have to go. Great chatting

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Give me the verse so I can explain it in context. I do not recall any mention of the plants coming before the sun. Is not the first act "let there be light".

Which is very accurate seeing as the big bang would have been pure light before it slowed down.

All light is the Sun. Good to know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Give me the verse so I can explain it in context. I do not recall any mention of the plants coming before the sun.

In Genesis 1:11-12 (the third day), plants are created. In Genesis 1:16-18 (the fourth day), the Sun and Moon are created.

Is not the first act "let there be light".

Yes, which is another bit of problem: you have light being created before the presumptive source of that light.

Which is very accurate seeing as the big bang would have been pure light before it slowed down.

It might've been very bright, but it wouldn't have been "pure light". That being said, any time when the nascent universe was so dense that it was glowing enough to sustain photosynthesis, this would have been billions of years before the Solar System formed, and probably would have also been even before the formation of oxygen.

 

[Jose Fly]

What we know about the origins of life on earth: What critics of critics of neo-creationists get wrong: a reply to Gordy Slack - The Panda's Thumb

I strongly suggest all participants in this thread read the above link. I also suggest the following...

Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life | Wired Science | Wired.com

Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribozyme

Issue August 2004: The Triplet Code From First Principles (p. 1-12)

Welcome to the Genome Diversity Center

BBC News | Sci/Tech | Lab molecules mimic life

Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme


Hopefully we can all stop arguing about Miller-Urey now. I mean, given the above (and some if it is already out of date), citing M-U is like citing UNIVAC when debating Microsoft vs. Apple.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok, what in Genesis contradicts current Scientific models which contradict themselves every 5 years.

You should consider that science is all about better theories replacing previous ones.
This is not a flaw in the scientific method, but rather fundamental to how it functions.
Religion, on the other hand, should be about absolute & unchanging truth....but they
can't even agree on their truth, & it also changes with time. Now that's a real flaw.

 

[1948_its_happening]

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.

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."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."