sealchan
Well-Known Member
Yes, I was a blowhard, but I drew my image from experience. The truth is rarely black and white.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
Yes, I was a blowhard, but I drew my image from experience. The truth is rarely black and white.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
This is an example of the problem of self-reference...is sub-zones efforts to keep this thread on track themselves off track?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
When attacked self reference is often necessary. I am starting a new thread that will hopefully draw off this detour.
EDIT: Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.
EDIT: Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.
Last edited:
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
Didn't your parents teach you about the birds and the bees? Don't you know where babies come from?
From composition to decomposition. Genesis 3:19 "By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”
sealchan
Well-Known Member
I certainly appreciate your thread management efforts. For my part I may use this as an example for how to approach to addressing the OP...
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
It is no different than saying we are made from the dust of the stars.
We are generally made of the same stuff as our environment.
What is written is not a step-by-step manual.
Furthermore, Adam being directly created has nothing to do with what happened previously -as evolution is essentially a life-creating program which can be tweaked or reproduced at any time given knowledge and ability.
There is plenty to support an old earth and even humanoids existing prior to the events in Eden -and outside of Eden.
Adam was the first "man" to be made in God's image -with the potential to live forever.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Correct, both are believed by faith.
There are negative evidences regarding abiogenesis, but as has been pointed out, it's not for this thread.
'So, my first sentence above stands God cannot be proven by hard evidence that will convince non believers. On the other hand, God cannot be disproven to exist by any criteria.
Abioigenesis cannot be proven to have existed. It's acolytes simply say that they have faith that someday it will be proven. As has been said to me about my faith, pie n the sky by and by.
Because "science" is involved they believe it gives them the gloss of authority, for their faith.
As knowledge expands, there is been some minimal progress in the theory of abiogenesis, BUT there have arisen s number of roadblocks and quandaries that cast doubt on the theory, negative evidences, if you will.
I think I answered your question, didn;'t I ?
There are negative evidences regarding abiogenesis, but as has been pointed out, it's not for this thread.
'So, my first sentence above stands God cannot be proven by hard evidence that will convince non believers. On the other hand, God cannot be disproven to exist by any criteria.
Abioigenesis cannot be proven to have existed. It's acolytes simply say that they have faith that someday it will be proven. As has been said to me about my faith, pie n the sky by and by.
Because "science" is involved they believe it gives them the gloss of authority, for their faith.
As knowledge expands, there is been some minimal progress in the theory of abiogenesis, BUT there have arisen s number of roadblocks and quandaries that cast doubt on the theory, negative evidences, if you will.
I think I answered your question, didn;'t I ?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Of course ! You find them under cabbage leaves.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Is consciousness material? Implicit in this question is the question "Am I basically matter?"
If you find the question repugnant or even immoral then this indicates a rational value system which is at odds with personal value vs the value of physical matter.
Even if one acknowledges a deep relationship between consciousness and matter (that is, the brain) there is still the notion that consciousness is something more than the brain with which it appears entangled. Alternately one may say that it is self evident that consciousness is distinct from matter, that efforts to reduce it to matter are problematic so one should accept consciousness as a fundamental property of the Universe. This is precisely what David Chalmers would argue.
Once one acknowledges that various aspects of consciousness have their ground in physical systems, one can readily make the list of those features and then discuss their physical basis.
So for this OP the primary evidence offered for the distinction of consciousness from matter is that of the formers lack of spatial quality. But it may be the case that emergent properties may appear to be independent of their supportive layer but will carry forward the role for the next higher level nonetheless.
Molecules are composed of the combination of atoms into a more or less stable structure. If molecules were at the top of the matter hierarchy would molecules have any qualities which would make them appear to be non-atomic? Perhaps the way it can form self replicating cycles of molecular interactions would make molecules appear to have some emergent property that makes them non-materialistic. If somehow WE WERE certain of these molecules, would we, then see ourselves as fundamentally other than the materialistic world of the atoms? Would those reaction pathways which are spaceless abstractions of what atoms and molecules are doing be seen as evidence for a special quality of molecules?
Of course most people today would say that atoms and molecules are all about matter and a few people might be aware that self-sustaining chemical and molecular chain reactions exist. But few would say molecules had escaped the realm of the material due to some special characteristic they seem to have.
But in saying this are we being rationally inconsistent with our own view of conscious and self-consciousness?
If you find the question repugnant or even immoral then this indicates a rational value system which is at odds with personal value vs the value of physical matter.
Even if one acknowledges a deep relationship between consciousness and matter (that is, the brain) there is still the notion that consciousness is something more than the brain with which it appears entangled. Alternately one may say that it is self evident that consciousness is distinct from matter, that efforts to reduce it to matter are problematic so one should accept consciousness as a fundamental property of the Universe. This is precisely what David Chalmers would argue.
Once one acknowledges that various aspects of consciousness have their ground in physical systems, one can readily make the list of those features and then discuss their physical basis.
So for this OP the primary evidence offered for the distinction of consciousness from matter is that of the formers lack of spatial quality. But it may be the case that emergent properties may appear to be independent of their supportive layer but will carry forward the role for the next higher level nonetheless.
Molecules are composed of the combination of atoms into a more or less stable structure. If molecules were at the top of the matter hierarchy would molecules have any qualities which would make them appear to be non-atomic? Perhaps the way it can form self replicating cycles of molecular interactions would make molecules appear to have some emergent property that makes them non-materialistic. If somehow WE WERE certain of these molecules, would we, then see ourselves as fundamentally other than the materialistic world of the atoms? Would those reaction pathways which are spaceless abstractions of what atoms and molecules are doing be seen as evidence for a special quality of molecules?
Of course most people today would say that atoms and molecules are all about matter and a few people might be aware that self-sustaining chemical and molecular chain reactions exist. But few would say molecules had escaped the realm of the material due to some special characteristic they seem to have.
But in saying this are we being rationally inconsistent with our own view of conscious and self-consciousness?
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Sort of... but you gave a very positive spin on "God without evidence" and a very negative spin on "abiogenesis without evidence," which is telling.
I could easily say something like: "Because "God" is involved they believe it gives them the gloss of authority, for their faith." about you - parroting your own sentiment about those who revere science.
And, not to get you started on this, but there has been progress in understanding how abiogenesis may have occurred. They have found progressions of plausible (as in, possible to have occurred naturally) chemical compositions and reactions that produce long RNA-like strands that can go on to zip together with like elements and compounds, and when stability is reached for the new "half", it chemically unzips again, forming a copy of the original molecule - a form of "reproduction" if you will. And then those new molecules are capable of doing the same thing once they have bumped into and latched onto all the correct elements/compounds to produce yet another copy. They were even able to witness transcription errors, whereby the resulting "copied" molecule contained one too many atoms of this or that element, and had therefore "mutated." Extremely fascinating stuff. Not that some spark of "life" has been observed, obviously. But the fundamentals are there, just waiting for whatever "oomph" it was that pushed them in the right direction. For all I know, that could have been "God." But stating so definitively just seems to be in very poor taste to me.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Yes, I am aware of the research you are speaking of. However interesting it is, and it is, there is a very long way to go. But, they demonstrate intelligent design beautifully.
Yes, You could just as easily apply ¨the gloss of authority¨ to me, I have no problem with that.
My point is that I have FAITH in God, they have FAITH in a process and those who practice it
Audie
Veteran Member
*** THREAD LOCKED PENDING STAFF REVIEW ***
Because Rules 1 and 3 are a thing.
Because Rules 1 and 3 are a thing.
Thread reopened. Try and keep it civil guys.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
One clarification on the theory of evolution is that it does not rely on abiogenesis. It deals with how life changed after it got here. It does not matter if that life arose naturally through abiogenesis. Was poofed into existence by a god. Or was the result of alien seeding. Once life got here it evolved, or at least that is what all of the scientific evidence shows, and that is what the theory of evolution explains. The diversity of life as we now see it.
The request of the OP was for evidence for the creation of Man. One could even allow for the evolution of all other life, what specific evidence is there for man's creation?
The request of the OP was for evidence for the creation of Man. One could even allow for the evolution of all other life, what specific evidence is there for man's creation?
gnostic
The Lost One
"Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All 11 are necessary for life.
Composition of the human body - Wikipedia
Composition of the human body - Wikipedia"
Its not the literal dust or soil.....but the elements of the earth itself.
I was never a biology student, and my chemistry is rusty, but you two seriously to go back to school and take up chemistry and biology.
I know that both play very loose with scientific definitions, and that what you both looked so ridiculously ignorant with science.
If you know basic chemistry, you should know the differences between elements, molecules and compounds.
While there are many different types of atoms in our bodies, we don’t have single pure elements in any parts of our body.
So let me give you a refresher on simple basic chemistry definitions.
Element, in chemistry, any substance, object and matter that has only type of atoms.
Example, if you have pure gold (no impurities, no alloy with other metals, then that is an ELEMENT of just gold atoms.
Molecule is any substance, object or matter that may have 2 or more different types of atoms, that are bonded together.
Example, water is a molecule of two types of atoms - hydrogen and oxygen. There are 1 oxygen atom bonded with 2 hydrogen atoms. Water isn’t an element; it is a molecule.
Compound is any substance, object or matter that have any number of molecules and/or elements, chemically bond together.
Example, amino acid is a substance biological of compound that bond together two different types of molecules, plus side-chains of biochemical:
- amine NH2
- carboxylic acid COOH
To you, @dejee
That is another image you have posted up, without context. There is more to composition of human body than just that you have chart you have posted up.
Did you even bother to read the wiki article?
Or even the opening paragraph to the article?
The composition in the human body, include proteins, dna, water, fat, etc.
Here is the opening paragraph to the wiki article, which you got the picture from:
“Wikipedia: Composition of the Human Body” said:
There is also a table containing these molecules or molecular types near the bottom of the article.
You have a very bad habit of posting pictures (like those animals pics), but they don’t have contexts, because you leave out important information that go with each picture.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Though the chart from the Wiki article does not pertain to the discussion here it is interesting to see that by mass we are roughly 2/3 oxygen, but by percentage of atoms we are 2/3 hydrogen. What the body is made of can be largely a matter of perspective.
Gnostic...you asked a question and I gave you an answer by way of a graph which demonstrated that all living creatures are indeed made up from the common elements of the dust....what context was necessary? It was a simple truth. No complex explanations necessary.