Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[TagliatelliMonster]

These objections to the Christian view of the Urey-Miller experiment is valid, but beating a dead horse to death in a Noah's Arc thread is not the way to go. Contemporary discoveries and research are far more relevant in the abiogenesis thread.

It is very similar to the fundamentalists beating up on Darwin concerning evolution when science has gone long beyond Charles Darwin in the History books of science.

If they don't, or refuse, to understand the concept of "controlled conditions" and what that represents and why it is useful, then no amount of discussion about anything involving any experiment is going to matter.

It's not about Urey-Miller for me. It's about the experiment part.
I just use Urey-Miller because it's what they themselves brought up.

The exact same point can be made using any experiment that happens in a controlled environment.

I tried dumbing it down by explaining it with the process of freezing in the controlled environment known as a "freezer" but alas...... even that simplification fell on deaf ears.

If the significance and concept of "controlled environment" of a friggin' freezer can't even be understood by these people, what hope do you have discussing advanced subjects like modern hypothesis and research in a field like abiogenesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If they don't, or refuse, to understand the concept of "controlled conditions" and what that represents and why it is useful, then no amount of discussion about anything involving any experiment is going to matter.

It's not about Urey-Miller for me. It's about the experiment part.
I just use Urey-Miller because it's what they themselves brought up.

The exact same point can be made using any experiment that happens in a controlled environment.

I tried dumbing it down by explaining it with the process of freezing in the controlled environment known as a "freezer" but alas...... even that simplification fell on deaf ears.

If the significance and concept of "controlled environment" of a friggin' freezer can't even be understood by these people, what hope do you have discussing advanced subjects like modern hypothesis and research in a field like abiogenesis?

That is why I use MU experiment as a litmus test. It is a very simple experiment where the methodology and controls are easily seen and understood. Your freezer example is even more extreme. If a person cannot understand and honestly accept the simplest of experiments there is no way that a highly complex experiment will be accepted.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Urey Miller experiment needed to have an electric current passed through the set up and also the requisite materials put out. It was contrived. Your use of the word creationist is somewhat similar to the word evolutionist, so I suggest you use another word because those believing in God's actions in the Genesis account do not always believe the same way. Best you don't use the word creationist.

The Urey-Miller experiment is valid, but old, and followed very very basic predictive scientific methods used throughout science. All throughout science environments in the lab are used to test everything from physics to medicine.

It is your personal agenda that results in your rejection of the Urey-Miller experiment, and not based on what is accepted scientific methods.

 

[gnostic]

The Urey Miller experiment needed to have an electric current passed through the set up and also the requisite materials put out. It was contrived. Your use of the word creationist is somewhat similar to the word evolutionist, so I suggest you use another word because those believing in God's actions in the Genesis account do not always believe the same way. Best you don't use the word creationist.

the whole genesis is “contrived”, including the Creation myth, Flood myth, the Babel myths and the 3 patriarchs of the “Hebrew“ origin. They are contrived, man-made myths. There are no “history“ in the Genesis myths, and there are no “science” in either the creation or the flood, just fabricated stories based on much older Mesopotamian myths.

Humans being of soil or clay go as far back as 3rd millennium BCE, among the Sumerians and Egyptians, predating the composition of Genesis by over 2000 years. The Jews living in Babylon in the 6th century BCE, adapted the Babylonian creation myth, when they composed their own version of creation in the Genesis for the first time. Hence, it’s “contrived”.

You may believe whatever you want to beliefs, but know that God creating the world & life, is merely believing in primitive superstitions, which have no merits, scientifically or historically.

 

[YoursTrue]

the whole genesis is “contrived”, including the Creation myth, Flood myth, the Babel myths and the 3 patriarchs of the “Hebrew“ origin. They are contrived, man-made myths. There are no “history“ in the Genesis myths, and there are no “science” in either the creation or the flood, just fabricated stories based on much older Mesopotamian myths.

Humans being of soil or clay go as far back as 3rd millennium BCE, among the Sumerians and Egyptians, predating the composition of Genesis by over 2000 years. The Jews living in Babylon in the 6th century BCE, adapted the Babylonian creation myth, when they composed their own version of creation in the Genesis for the first time. Hence, it’s “contrived”.

You may believe whatever you want to beliefs, but know that God creating the world & life, is merely believing in primitive superstitions, which have no merits, scientifically or historically.

Nothing you say adds up. Let's be honest. One famous scientist said yes, something (the universe) came from nothing. Now if you believe that, have a good one. So that means I'd sooner believe the Bible than your statements and Dr. Hawking's. He says...they say...but the Bible makes far more sense to me than it apparently does to you. Do I understand everything ? No. Do you? I doubt it.

 

[YoursTrue]

the whole genesis is “contrived”, including the Creation myth, Flood myth, the Babel myths and the 3 patriarchs of the “Hebrew“ origin. They are contrived, man-made myths. There are no “history“ in the Genesis myths, and there are no “science” in either the creation or the flood, just fabricated stories based on much older Mesopotamian myths.

Humans being of soil or clay go as far back as 3rd millennium BCE, among the Sumerians and Egyptians, predating the composition of Genesis by over 2000 years. The Jews living in Babylon in the 6th century BCE, adapted the Babylonian creation myth, when they composed their own version of creation in the Genesis for the first time. Hence, it’s “contrived”.

You may believe whatever you want to beliefs, but know that God creating the world & life, is merely believing in primitive superstitions, which have no merits, scientifically or historically.

I disagree and anyway our bodies turn to slime and dust or ashes now. I like Brian2's response about Bible accuracy. The fact that it has virtually not been added to since the book of Revelation prompts me to understand it makes sense. Because the Bible itself is the revelation, the communication with mankind.

 

[gnostic]

I disagree and anyway our bodies turn to slime and dust or ashes now. I like Brian2's response about Bible accuracy. The fact that it has virtually not been added to since the book of Revelation prompts me to understand it makes sense. Because the Bible itself is the revelation, the communication with mankind.

humans as well as every other living organisms are made of cells, NOT DUST, OR SOIL OR CLAY, you biology-illiterate!

Cells are not made of dust, soil or clay. The Genesis’ “dust of the ground”, which I would assume to mean some types of soil on the surface layer, which is the “topsoil”, which is more porous than the “subsoil”, which have less pores.

the topsoil are largely comprised of about 45% of minerals, mostly of silicon-based minerals, such as silica like quartz (eg sandy soil, or silt soil), or silicate, like feldspar (eg silt soil or clay soil) or mica (eg clay soil). The other matters are organic, which is about 5% or less, where as the rest of 50% would be pores in the soil that contain about 25% of gases, and the rest of the pores (about 25%) would contain water.

there are no soil of any types, in any cells of human. There are no trace amount of silicon-based minerals in the cells. That no creationists understand that, just showed how utterly ignorant creationists are. They refused to understand that soils are non-living by-products waste of weathered rock minerals, particularly that of either feldspars, quartz or micas.

The 5% or less in soil, containing “organic matters” are either made of living microorganisms that thrived in soil such as bacteria or archaea, or non-living organic waste from organisms such as excrements or urine or shedded skin or hair from animals, or decomposed of any dead organisms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing you say adds up. Let's be honest. One famous scientist said yes, something (the universe) came from nothing. Now if you believe that, have a good one. So that means I'd sooner believe the Bible than your statements and Dr. Hawking's. He says...they say...but the Bible makes far more sense to me than it apparently does to you. Do I understand everything ? No. Do you? I doubt it.

Really? Which scientist said that? Please quote him. In context. I have my doubts that you can do so.

 

[gnostic]

I disagree and anyway our bodies turn to slime and dust or ashes now.

@YoursTrue

“Slime” isn’t a well-defined word. Now unless you mean mould when you say slime, then humans are not made of mould.

Humans, like every other mammals, are only “created” through reproduction, made from the unification of two single gamete cells: the sperm and ovum or egg. The unification of these 2 cells into one cell is called fertilisation; the one fertilised cell is known as zygote.

The zygote then go through series of stages called cell division, where zygote (the parent cell) would divide into daughter cells, and these cells further divide into more daughter cells, until those cells form into embryo. The embryo continued to produce more cells, so that embryo eventually grow into fetus. After average of 9 months of continued growth, the baby would be born.

dust would indicate non-living particle. Slime is even more vague. The ovum and sperm are living cells, not dust or slime.

humans, like most mammals, are born, they don’t lay eggs as reptiles, birds, amphibians or fishes do.

I wrote “most mammals“, as the only mammals I know of that can lay their eggs, are platypuses. The platypuses are oddities among mammals, because even marine mammals, like whales and dolphins give live births, they don’t lay their eggs.

humans are not made of dust of the ground or soil, they are made of cells. Every single tissues in a human body are made of cells.

humans don’t grow from the ground. Are you really that ignorant that you don’t understand human reproduction?

 

[shunyadragon]

Nothing you say adds up. Let's be honest. One famous scientist said yes, something (the universe) came from nothing. Now if you believe that, have a good one. So that means I'd sooner believe the Bible than your statements and Dr. Hawking's. He says...they say...but the Bible makes far more sense to me than it apparently does to you. Do I understand everything ? No. Do you? I doubt it.

Unless you cite the specific scientist and what he is actually referring to 'nothing' the following explanation is held by virtually all scientists in Physics and Cosmology.

Simple explanation

The 'nothing' sometimes referred to by some scientists is the smallest-scale Quantum nature of our physical existence that does not have space or time.

How the Physics of Nothing Underlies Everything | Quanta Magazine

The key to understanding the origin and fate of the universe may be a more complete understanding of the vacuum.

www.quantamagazine.org

How the Physics of Nothing Underlies Everything​

The key to understanding the origin and fate of the universe may be a more complete understanding of the vacuum.
39
An instability in the vacuum of space could suddenly spawn a rapidly expanding bubble with no interior — true nothingness.

Merrill Sherman/Quanta Magazine

Introduction​

Millennia ago, Aristotle asserted that nature abhors a vacuum, reasoning that objects would fly through truly empty space at impossible speeds. In 1277, the French bishop Etienne Tempier shot back, declaring that God could do anything, even create a vacuum.
Then a mere scientist pulled it off. Otto von Guericke invented a pump to suck the air from within a hollow copper sphere, establishing perhaps the first high-quality vacuum on Earth. In a theatrical demonstration in 1654, he showed that not even two teams of horses straining to rip apart the watermelon-size ball could overcome the suction of nothing.

Since then, the vacuum has become a bedrock concept in physics, the foundation of any theory of something. Von Guericke’s vacuum was an absence of air. The electromagnetic vacuum is the absence of a medium that can slow down light. And a gravitational vacuum lacks any matter or energy capable of bending space. In each case, the specific variety of nothing depends on what sort of something physicists intend to describe. “Sometimes, it’s the way we define a theory,” said Patrick Draper, a theoretical physicist at the University of Illinois.

As modern physicists have grappled with more sophisticated candidates for the ultimate theory of nature, they have encountered a growing multitude of types of nothing. Each has its own behavior as if it’s a different phase of a substance. Increasingly, it seems that the key to understanding the origin and fate of the universe may be a careful accounting of these proliferating varieties of absence.

read on for a more detailed explanation of Quantum Nothing.

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue

“Slime” isn’t a well-defined word. Now unless you mean mould when you say slime, then humans are not made of mould.

Humans, like every other mammals, are only “created” through reproduction, made from the unification of two single gamete cells: the sperm and ovum or egg. The unification of these 2 cells into one cell is called fertilisation; the one fertilised cell is known as zygote.

The zygote then go through series of stages called cell division, where zygote (the parent cell) would divide into daughter cells, and these cells further divide into more daughter cells, until those cells form into embryo. The embryo continued to produce more cells, so that embryo eventually grow into fetus. After average of 9 months of continued growth, the baby would be born.

dust would indicate non-living particle. Slime is even more vague. The ovum and sperm are living cells, not dust or slime.

humans, like most mammals, are born, they don’t lay eggs as reptiles, birds, amphibians or fishes do.

I wrote “most mammals“, as the only mammals I know of that can lay their eggs, are platypuses. The platypuses are oddities among mammals, because even marine mammals, like whales and dolphins give live births, they don’t lay their eggs.

humans are not made of dust of the ground or soil, they are made of cells. Every single tissues in a human body are made of cells.

humans don’t grow from the ground. Are you really that ignorant that you don’t understand human reproduction?

From what I understand dead bodies putrify and decompose in a coffin. They also stink. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...e/news-story/0e9af76204aee0e2adfb9775041fb243 I haven't seen a decomposed body but I know people who have. It isn't pretty.

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue

“Slime” isn’t a well-defined word. Now unless you mean mould when you say slime, then humans are not made of mould.

Humans, like every other mammals, are only “created” through reproduction, made from the unification of two single gamete cells: the sperm and ovum or egg. The unification of these 2 cells into one cell is called fertilisation; the one fertilised cell is known as zygote.

The zygote then go through series of stages called cell division, where zygote (the parent cell) would divide into daughter cells, and these cells further divide into more daughter cells, until those cells form into embryo. The embryo continued to produce more cells, so that embryo eventually grow into fetus. After average of 9 months of continued growth, the baby would be born.

dust would indicate non-living particle. Slime is even more vague. The ovum and sperm are living cells, not dust or slime.

humans, like most mammals, are born, they don’t lay eggs as reptiles, birds, amphibians or fishes do.

I wrote “most mammals“, as the only mammals I know of that can lay their eggs, are platypuses. The platypuses are oddities among mammals, because even marine mammals, like whales and dolphins give live births, they don’t lay their eggs.

humans are not made of dust of the ground or soil, they are made of cells. Every single tissues in a human body are made of cells.

humans don’t grow from the ground. Are you really that ignorant that you don’t understand human reproduction?

Who said humans grow from the ground? To say that man came from the soil is not that he grew from the soil.
But maybe you think scientists can keep working with chemicals or elements and eventually have it evolve to other forms outside the testtubes. But many doubt mankind will last that long to figure it out or duplicate the process until it grows to other organisms with skin, or fur, etc. Bones, brains, you know from a few chemicals?

 

[gnostic]

Who said humans grow from the ground?

Genesis 2, about Adam. Don't you know how to understand your own Bible?

To say that man came from the soil is not that he grew from the soil.

Now, you making excuses.

Genesis 2:4-7 4 In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no vegetation of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground, 6 but a stream would rise from the earth and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

First, it talk there being no plants and vegetation "in the fields" because there have been no rain on the "earth", and no one farming the "ground" in verses 5 & 6.

So it everything so far relates to the land, "field", "the earth" and the "ground".

So when it talk about God creating man from the "dust of the ground", then of course, it is talking about forming man from "the dust of the ground" could only mean some sorts of soil.

And as I have already mentioned to you in my previous post, there are 3 main types of soil (clay, silt, sand), and the main "solid" composition of soil are silicon-based minerals, such as quartz, feldspar and mica.

 

[danieldemol]

The Urey Miller experiment needed to have an electric current passed through the set up and also the requisite materials put out. It was contrived.

Contrived? Do you think electric current doesn't exist in nature? Then what is this?;

File:Port and lighthouse overnight storm with lightning in Port-la-Nouvelle.jpg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Your use of the word creationist is somewhat similar to the word evolutionist,

Only in the sense that they both end in "ist" the similarity pretty much ends there because evolution is so overwhelmingly supported by evidence that it has become the scientific consensus.

so I suggest you use another word because those believing in God's actions in the Genesis account do not always believe the same way. Best you don't use the word creationist.

Irrelevant, all who believe that God created life through non-natural means such as making Adam from dust and then blowing into his nostrils to bring him to life, or removing a rib from Adam to "create" eve fall under the umbrella term "creationists" even if they can't agree on the details.

 

[danieldemol]

And now that we're discussing it a little the Urey Miller experiment gathered equipment and chemicals and used electric current to pass through. Does anything like that happen on earth now? Naturally, of course.

Is anyone claiming that Abiogenesis happened on earth now? Strawman much?

 

[danieldemol]

I disagree and anyway our bodies turn to slime and dust or ashes now. I like Brian2's response about Bible accuracy. The fact that it has virtually not been added to since the book of Revelation prompts me to understand it makes sense. Because the Bible itself is the revelation, the communication with mankind.

It gets aded to every time the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses and thousands of other Christian sects add their interpretation and supplementary materials to it, for example a significant part of this entire website in my view;

https://www.jw.org/en/

 

[YoursTrue]

Genesis 2, about Adam. Don't you know how to understand your own Bible?



Now, you making excuses.



First, it talk there being no plants and vegetation "in the fields" because there have been no rain on the "earth", and no one farming the "ground" in verses 5 & 6.

So it everything so far relates to the land, "field", "the earth" and the "ground".

So when it talk about God creating man from the "dust of the ground", then of course, it is talking about forming man from "the dust of the ground" could only mean some sorts of soil.

And as I have already mentioned to you in my previous post, there are 3 main types of soil (clay, silt, sand), and the main "solid" composition of soil are silicon-based minerals, such as quartz, feldspar and mica.

Your attitude is not good. Nothing in the account says Adam grew from the ground. So good bye and take care since you don't understand and like many others don't want to understand. Enjoy evolution and the eventuality of it. Take care bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

humans as well as every other living organisms are made of cells, NOT DUST, OR SOIL OR CLAY, you biology-illiterate!

Cells are not made of dust, soil or clay. The Genesis’ “dust of the ground”, which I would assume to mean some types of soil on the surface layer, which is the “topsoil”, which is more porous than the “subsoil”, which have less pores.

the topsoil are largely comprised of about 45% of minerals, mostly of silicon-based minerals, such as silica like quartz (eg sandy soil, or silt soil), or silicate, like feldspar (eg silt soil or clay soil) or mica (eg clay soil). The other matters are organic, which is about 5% or less, where as the rest of 50% would be pores in the soil that contain about 25% of gases, and the rest of the pores (about 25%) would contain water.

there are no soil of any types, in any cells of human. There are no trace amount of silicon-based minerals in the cells. That no creationists understand that, just showed how utterly ignorant creationists are. They refused to understand that soils are non-living by-products waste of weathered rock minerals, particularly that of either feldspars, quartz or micas.

The 5% or less in soil, containing “organic matters” are either made of living microorganisms that thrived in soil such as bacteria or archaea, or non-living organic waste from organisms such as excrements or urine or shedded skin or hair from animals, or decomposed of any dead organisms.

LOL, more unsupported doctrine from you ...
Try looking at this from the Encyclopedia Britannica -- maybe you believe it, maybe you don't. Maybe you'll learn something. Anything is possible in this case, (your case) I'll give you the credit.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica -- on the Oriigin of Life:
"Perhaps the most fundamental and at the same time the least understood biological problem is the origin of life. " There's more, lots more, but talk about biology illiterate, perhaps you should do a little more reading yourself...
www.britannica.com/science/life/The-origin-of-life.
By the way, bodies deteriorate and stink eventually in a coffin, they turn to slime -- eventually decompose. Contrary to your opinion.
***Soil is essential for life on the earth. Have a good one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, more unsupported doctrine from you ...
Try looking at this from the Encyclopedia Britannica -- maybe you believe it, maybe you don't. Maybe you'll learn something. Anything is possible in this case, (your case) I'll give you the credit.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica -- on the Oriigin of Life:
"Perhaps the most fundamental and at the same time the least understood biological problem is the origin of life. " There's more, lots more, but talk about biology illiterate, perhaps you should do a little more reading yourself...
www.britannica.com/science/life/The-origin-of-life.
By the way, bodies deteriorate and stink eventually in a coffin, they turn to slime -- eventually decompose. Contrary to your opinion.
***Soil is essential for life on the earth. Have a good one.

Soil is not necessary for even modern life. Go out to the middle of the ocean. You will find algae and fish that do use fine without soil.

 

[gnostic]

LOL, more unsupported doctrine from you ...
Try looking at this from the Encyclopedia Britannica -- maybe you believe it, maybe you don't. Maybe you'll learn something. Anything is possible in this case, (your case) I'll give you the credit.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica -- on the Oriigin of Life:
"Perhaps the most fundamental and at the same time the least understood biological problem is the origin of life. " There's more, lots more, but talk about biology illiterate, perhaps you should do a little more reading yourself...
www.britannica.com/science/life/The-origin-of-life.
By the way, bodies deteriorate and stink eventually in a coffin, they turn to slime -- eventually decompose. Contrary to your opinion.
***Soil is essential for life on the earth. Have a good one.

Are being willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest requirements or Golden Rules of Jehovah's Witnesses?