Genesis 2

[Bunyip]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
When they(IAP) produced the "observed facts"----"Elements" from nothing as they claim happened and "Life" from the "elements" which they produced, then I will believe them and you.
Until then, your multiple post and conclusions are the false pseudoscience you are peddling.
They admit to a lack of "Details"---which is understandable---their "Theories" have not been "Observed", Therefore, cannot be considered "facts" by their own definition. Get Real! IT is only "Faith" in their own "unproven Theories".



Hi Bunyip, It was the creationist, but the CREATOR who did the Creating of ALL that is seen---That is the evidence.

No, that is not evidence - it is just an assumption of yours, not evidence. Show me your god doing any of those things - you have observed none of them.

HE was recorded with mankind at Sinai and for more than forty years--extending into the conquest of the promised land. During that time, HE produced Manna for over a million persons, produced water from rock, produced food for their animals, Parted the Red sea so they went over it on dry-land.
In the beginning, GOD did create all you see. including Life in all its forms.

But you can not observe, or prove a word of that.

Yes, I do have Faith in the Creator GOD rather than the "Theories" produced by the machinations of mankind.

Sure you have faith, theories have evidence are testable, falsifyable and drawn from observation - beats faith every time.

 

[Ouroboros]

When they(IAP) produced the "observed facts"----"Elements" from nothing as they claim happened and "Life" from the "elements" which they produced, then I will believe them and you.
Until then, your multiple post and conclusions are the false pseudoscience you are peddling.
They admit to a lack of "Details"---which is understandable---their "Theories" have not been "Observed", Therefore, cannot be considered "facts" by their own definition. Get Real! IT is only "Faith" in their own "unproven Theories".

We do come from elements. What exactly do you think the nucleotides are made out of in your DNA? The sugar molecule, phosphorus, and such that binds them together are made from ...? What exactly?

Our bodies are made from molecules. The molecules are compositions of elementary particles. When you eat food, it's dead matter. Your body takes it, breaks it down (also done by foreign organisms), and builds them up again for producing new cells. That's matter becoming matter, and the shape, form, and structure, that what defines what our body is made from.

You might believe that a Creator started the process of life, fine, but we do factually come from and upheld by matter and the physical, chemical, and biochemical processes.

 

[Thief]

We do come from elements. What exactly do you think the nucleotides are made out of in your DNA? The sugar molecule, phosphorus, and such that binds them together are made from ...? What exactly?

Our bodies are made from molecules. The molecules are compositions of elementary particles. When you eat food, it's dead matter. Your body takes it, breaks it down (also done by foreign organisms), and builds them up again for producing new cells. That's matter becoming matter, and the shape, form, and structure, that what defines what our body is made from.

You might believe that a Creator started the process of life, fine, but we do factually come from and upheld by matter and the physical, chemical, and biochemical processes.

I can almost agree....but...
life has an existence other than chemistry.

Our personal experiences are gathered as each copy of this chemistry wanders about.

But when the chemistry fails the spirit may go on.

I believe the Source of spirit.....is the Spirit.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
When they(IAP) produce the "observed facts"----"Elements" from nothing as they claim happened and "Life" from the "elements" which they produced, then I will believe them and you.
Until then, your multiple post and conclusions are the false pseudoscience you are peddling.
They admit to a lack of "Details"---which is understandable---their "Theories" have not been "Observed", Therefore, cannot be considered "facts" by their own definition. Get Real! IT is only "Faith" in their own "unproven Theories".

Hi Bunyip, It was(NOT) the creationist, but the CREATOR who did the Creating of ALL that is seen---That is the evidence.
HE was recorded with mankind at Sinai and for more than forty years--extending into the conquest of the promised land. During that time, HE produced Manna for over a million persons, produced water from rock, produced food for their animals, Parted the Red sea so they went over it on dry-land.
In the beginning, GOD did create all you see. including Life in all its forms.
Yes, I do have Faith in the Creator GOD rather than the "Theories" produced by the machinations of mankind.

No, that is not evidence - it is just an assumption of yours, not evidence. Show me your god doing any of those things - you have observed none of them.

Wrong! The product of the Creator GOD is all that one sees. The product of what scientist claim came about from all their "Theories" is the same "all one sees". Therefore, "all that one sees" is the evidence.

But you can not observe, or prove a word of that.

True, neither(NONE) of us is able to observe the Original "production" of what we believe. GOD'S question to JOB (38:4), over 3500 years ago, is still the limiting factor in the "personal observation" of "all that is seen" coming into Being. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."
Therefore, Scientist can not eliminate the Force/source/GOD that brought all things into being. It just didn't "happen"---as scientist acknowledge(partially)---the Cause and effect. They admit to the lack of "details". Which is the ignoring of the "Creator of those foundations".

Sure you have faith, theories have evidence are testable, falsifyable and drawn from observation - beats faith every time.

There is faith in the ideas of a product that it will work as designed/theorized.
That is the driving force in that acknowledged IAP statement "Even if". IT isn't "If"---there are multiple "details" which are simply taken for granted; and which, will not lead to the entire explanation for "All that is seen".

Before one can get to the finished product, one has to have the "foundation" upon which all the rest "fits together."

 

[sincerly]

We do come from elements. What exactly do you think the nucleotides are made out of in your DNA? The sugar molecule, phosphorus, and such that binds them together are made from ...? What exactly?

Our bodies are made from molecules. The molecules are compositions of elementary particles. When you eat food, it's dead matter. Your body takes it, breaks it down (also done by foreign organisms), and builds them up again for producing new cells. That's matter becoming matter, and the shape, form, and structure, that what defines what our body is made from.

You might believe that a Creator started the process of life, fine, but we do factually come from and upheld by matter and the physical, chemical, and biochemical processes.

Yes, we were fearfully and wonderfully made as the psalmist wrote. It was that Creation by the Creator GOD, Man, who assimilates those "elements" into a renewing of the body and energy for it to function as designed.

GOD created Life---It didn't "spontaneously appear"---as the IAP(and others) would have one believe.

 

[outhouse]

GOD created Life---It didn't "spontaneously appear"---as the IAP(and others) would have one believe.

You dont have the intellect to comment on something WAY over your head.

IAP never states anything about abiogenesis not a word.


Pleasae learn how to comprehend grade school english


And to date creation is pseudoscience, and mythology

 

[outhouse]

They admit to a lack of "Details

We understand you do not have the intellect or comprehensive abilities to understand "all" details are not needed to make something a fact.

It is a FACT gravity makes an apple fall, yet we do not know all the details of gravity.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, we were fearfully and wonderfully made as the psalmist wrote. It was that Creation by the Creator GOD, Man, who assimilates those "elements" into a renewing of the body and energy for it to function as designed.

GOD created Life---It didn't "spontaneously appear"---as the IAP(and others) would have one believe.

But that's not what you said. You said life can't come from the elements. But it does daily. Right now. In your body. Bacteria eats elements and divide and become new life every 20 minutes.

They recently discovered that there's these microbes that eat electrons. Electrons is even smaller part than element. It's a particle. And of course, we already know that we have energy conversion from light to carbon chains in plants (photosynthesis). We eat the carbon and it becomes part of the big chain of "life".

Now, the question about life to "spontaneous" appear or if it was intentionally created, that still has nothing to do with evolution of life. Put it this way.

Chain of events:
1) Life beings
2) Life evolves

Point 1), God did it, nature did it, or aliens did it. Doesn't matter to Evolution
Point 2), that is Theory of Evolution.

Theory of Evolution explains how the genetic material (DNA) chances and why.

Abiogenesis explains (or tries to) how the genetic material began.

It's like the separation of
1) A nail was made in a factory
2) A nail was used to build a house.

Two separate issues. Building a house can be done without knowing where, when, and how the nail was made. The nail could have been made in Mexico, China, America, Europe, and still it's the same house.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Yes, we were fearfully and wonderfully made as the psalmist wrote. It was that Creation by the Creator GOD, Man, who assimilates those "elements" into a renewing of the body and energy for it to function as designed.

GOD created Life---It didn't "spontaneously appear"---as the IAP(and others) would have one believe.

But that's not what you said. You said life can't come from the elements. But it does daily. Right now. In your body. Bacteria eats elements and divide and become new life every 20 minutes.

"elements" are the building blocks of "all that is seen", but they in them selves have no ability to cause "LIFE". It didn't "spontaneously appear".

Those bacteria which "divide" to become new cells have "Life" to give "Life"---producing "after its kind".

They recently discovered that there's these microbes that eat electrons. Electrons is even smaller part than element. It's a particle. And of course, we already know that we have energy conversion from light to carbon chains in plants (photosynthesis). We eat the carbon and it becomes part of the big chain of "life".

ATP comes about through a biochemical process known as the Krebs Cycle.
Should a Bacteria "eat" electrons---then it would destroy the "elements" and eventually eat itself--since it too is composed of "elements having electrons".

Now, the question about life to "spontaneous" appear or if it was intentionally created, that still has nothing to do with evolution of life. Put it this way.

Chain of events:
1) Life beings
2) Life evolves

Point 1), God did it, nature did it, or aliens did it. Doesn't matter to Evolution
Point 2), that is Theory of Evolution.

Theory of Evolution explains how the genetic material (DNA) chances and why.

Abiogenesis explains (or tries to) how the genetic material began.

It's like the separation of
1) A nail was made in a factory
2) A nail was used to build a house.

Two separate issues. Building a house can be done without knowing where, when, and how the nail was made. The nail could have been made in Mexico, China, America, Europe, and still it's the same house.

Not quite! That nail had to have the necessary material for it to be made.
Even that which the house was made from for the nail to be used had to have an origin. GOD put it all together in the "Spake and it stood fast."
The ATP source was a well designed function in the "Fearfully and wonderfully made" living organism---even the tiniest of "organisms".

 

[outhouse]

Your statement carries less then zero credibility.

It is all just wrong and not substantiated.

 

[outhouse]

Should a Bacteria "eat" electrons---then it would destroy the "elements" and eventually eat itself--since it too is composed of "elements having electrons".

Stop talking about things you know nothing at all about.

http://www.google.com/url?url=http:...qQIwAA&usg=AFQjCNH9PbNfXZTgIM7a16oq9mc62xkqNA

When higher voltages are pumped into the water, the bacteria “eats” electrons from the electrode; when a lower voltage is present, the bacteria ...

 

[Ouroboros]

Electric life that lives purely on electrons: Meet the electric life forms that live on pure energy - life - 16 July 2014 - New Scientist

Unlike any other living thing on Earth, electric bacteria use energy in its purest form – naked electricity in the shape of electrons harvested from rocks and metals. We already knew about two types, Shewanella and Geobacter. Now, biologists are showing that they can entice many more out of rocks and marine mud by tempting them with a bit of electrical juice. Experiments growing bacteria on battery electrodes demonstrate that these novel, mind-boggling forms of life are essentially eating and excreting electricity.

 

[Ouroboros]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Yes, we were fearfully and wonderfully made as the psalmist wrote. It was that Creation by the Creator GOD, Man, who assimilates those "elements" into a renewing of the body and energy for it to function as designed.

GOD created Life---It didn't "spontaneously appear"---as the IAP(and others) would have one believe.

You mean that like the metabolic system that spontaneously appeared in petri dishes not long ago?

Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells - life - 25 April 2014 - New Scientist

I guess it didn't happen since you say so.

"elements" are the building blocks of "all that is seen", but they in them selves have no ability to cause "LIFE". It didn't "spontaneously appear".

Biological life is biological. It's what is seen. Biological is complex chemistry. Chemistry is based on elements.

Those bacteria which "divide" to become new cells have "Life" to give "Life"---producing "after its kind".

Except when they change their "kind". Life gives life because this world is essentially alive. There's no conflict in nature giving life since nature is a living organism.

ATP comes about through a biochemical process known as the Krebs Cycle.
Should a Bacteria "eat" electrons---then it would destroy the "elements" and eventually eat itself--since it too is composed of "elements having electrons".

Read this

That should not come as a complete surprise, says Kenneth Nealson at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. We know that life, when you boil it right down, is a flow of electrons: "You eat sugars that have excess electrons, and you breathe in oxygen that willingly takes them." Our cells break down the sugars, and the electrons flow through them in a complex set of chemical reactions until they are passed on to electron-hungry oxygen.

In the process, cells make ATP, a molecule that acts as an energy storage unit for almost all living things. Moving electrons around is a key part of making ATP. "Life's very clever," says Nealson. "It figures out how to suck electrons out of everything we eat and keep them under control." In most living things, the body packages the electrons up into molecules that can safely carry them through the cells until they are dumped on to oxygen.

"That's the way we make all our energy and it's the same for every organism on this planet," says Nealson. "Electrons must flow in order for energy to be gained. This is why when someone suffocates another person they are dead within minutes. You have stopped the supply of oxygen, so the electrons can no longer flow."

The discovery of electric bacteria shows that some very basic forms of life can do away with sugary middlemen and handle the energy in its purest form – electrons, harvested from the surface of minerals. "It is truly foreign, you know," says Nealson. "In a sense, alien."

From: Meet the electric life forms that live on pure energy - life - 16 July 2014 - New Scientist

Not quite! That nail had to have the necessary material for it to be made.
Even that which the house was made from for the nail to be used had to have an origin. GOD put it all together in the "Spake and it stood fast."
The ATP source was a well designed function in the "Fearfully and wonderfully made" living organism---even the tiniest of "organisms".

So you're saying that if I hire a handyman to fix a wall, he must have full understanding of quantum mechanics, physics, astronomy, and chemistry? He can't use the hammer unless he knows where the nails was made. And only if it was made in Mexico can it be used. That's silly.

Abiogenesis is not solved, but it doesn't change Evolution one bit. Evolution is a separate category in the sphere of biological life. The fact that you don't see the difference shows me that you have a very weak understanding of the issue overall.

Please read this to deepen your understanding: http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionabiogenesis/a/evolution.htm

 

[sincerly]

You mean that like the metabolic system that spontaneously appeared in petri dishes not long ago?

Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells - life - 25 April 2014 - New Scientist

I guess it didn't happen since you say so.

Biological life is biological. It's what is seen. Biological is complex chemistry. Chemistry is based on elements.

Except when they change their "kind". Life gives life because this world is essentially alive. There's no conflict in nature giving life since nature is a living organism.

Read this From: Meet the electric life forms that live on pure energy - life - 16 July 2014 - New Scientist

So you're saying that if I hire a handyman to fix a wall, he must have full understanding of quantum mechanics, physics, astronomy, and chemistry? He can't use the hammer unless he knows where the nails was made. And only if it was made in Mexico can it be used. That's silly.

Abiogenesis is not solved, but it doesn't change Evolution one bit. Evolution is a separate category in the sphere of biological life. The fact that you don't see the difference shows me that you have a very weak understanding of the issue overall.

Please read this to deepen your understanding: Abiogenesis & Evolution - Biology Myths

A petri dish of chemicals would result in a chemical process producing energy, but that energy, by whatever definition, doesn't equate to a living organism.
A battery produces electronic "energy".

Of course, this world is "essentially alive"---GOD made it so---living plants and animals.

I did read that site prior to my last post.

What is "silly" is your supposed response.

"A common Ancestor" is acceptable, but a common foundational source isn't.

"About--atheism" isn't the topic--- the creation by the Creator GOD of all things as seen in Gen.1+2 is the topic.

 

[Bunyip]

A petri dish of chemicals would result in a chemical process producing energy, but that energy, by whatever definition, doesn't equate to a living organism.
A battery produces electronic "energy".

Of course, this world is "essentially alive"---GOD made it so---living plants and animals.

I did read that site prior to my last post.

What is "silly" is your supposed response.

"A common Ancestor" is acceptable, but a common foundational source isn't.

"About--atheism" isn't the topic--- the creation by the Creator GOD of all things as seen in Gen.1+2 is the topic.

Life is a chemical process, using the same electrical energy you get in batteries.

 

[Ouroboros]

A petri dish of chemicals would result in a chemical process producing energy, but that energy, by whatever definition, doesn't equate to a living organism.

No. Not producing energy. Using energy. "Eating" it and repurposing it.

A battery produces electronic "energy".

Your metabolic system uses energy. Energy is stored by photosynthesis in complex carbon compounds. That's that energy you eat to live. It's carbon based molecules. Carbon is an elementary particle.

Of course, this world is "essentially alive"---GOD made it so---living plants and animals.

I did read that site prior to my last post.

What is "silly" is your supposed response.

No, what is silly is to conflate to concepts without even trying to understand the difference.

"A common Ancestor" is acceptable, but a common foundational source isn't.

Evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis, regardless of whatever you say.

"About--atheism" isn't the topic--- the creation by the Creator GOD of all things as seen in Gen.1+2 is the topic.

No. I'm not arguing atheism at all. I'm arguing evolution. And I'm arguing that evolution and abiogenesis are two different topics. Two different categories. And every article out there by any serious scientist would confirm this.

--edit

One more thing, let's see if you understand this. Evolution is about how life came from life. It doesn't reject God as the origin of life. It only explains the variation of existing life. So essentially, evolution does not reject anything of what you said above, simply because evolution is about change of life, not origin of life.

Here's one definition of the term "evolution": "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

Notice the "have developed and diversified from earlier forms..." It means, life from life. Abiogenesis (not evolution) is about "life from non-life". Evolution is about "life from life". So when you argue against life from non-life, you're not arguing against life from life.

 

[outhouse]

We understand you do not have the intellect or comprehensive abilities to understand "all" details are not needed to make something a fact.

It is a FACT gravity makes an apple fall, yet we do not know all the details of gravity.

Or use the quote feature correctly.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
A petri dish of chemicals would result in a chemical process producing energy, but that energy, by whatever definition, doesn't equate to a living organism.
A battery produces electronic "energy".

Of course, this world is "essentially alive"---GOD made it so---living plants and animals.

I did read that site prior to my last post.

What is "silly" is your supposed response.

"A common Ancestor" is acceptable, but a common foundational source isn't.

"About--atheism" isn't the topic--- the creation by the Creator GOD of all things as seen in Gen.1+2 is the topic.

No. Not producing energy. Using energy. "Eating" it and repurposing it.

Your metabolic system uses energy. Energy is stored by photosynthesis in complex carbon compounds. That's that energy you eat to live. It's carbon based molecules. Carbon is an elementary particle.

I'm glad you placed Eating in quote marks. The "metabolic system" of each single cell uses "energy" and the Krebs cycle helps one to understand the process of all those "carbon based molecules" to be broken down into useable energy/substance to fuel and maintain the "cell" and its function. The Human Body is still "fearfully and wonderfully made" by the Creator GOD.

--edit
One more thing, let's see if you understand this. Evolution is about how life came from life. It doesn't reject God as the origin of life. It only explains the variation of existing life. So essentially, evolution does not reject anything of what you said above, simply because evolution is about change of life, not origin of life.

Your above contradicts GOD'S, Gen.1:11-25, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.....And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good...And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

Evolution and the Creation of all things by GOD are Not compatible.
While evolutionist want to separate themselves from the initial part of the Creation Story----the making of the "world" upon which all living things exist. It can't be done Scripturally. GOD DID IT ALL.

There was NOT a pool of chemicals by which a spontaneous action produced "LIFE".

Here's one definition of the term "evolution": "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

Notice the "have developed and diversified from earlier forms..." It means, life from life. Abiogenesis (not evolution) is about "life from non-life". Evolution is about "life from life". So when you argue against life from non-life, you're not arguing against life from life.

Ouroboros, Therefore, since they believe that "life begets life", How and where did those "earlier forms" originate? And "during the history of the earth"?
See? those are the "lacking details" which are ignored and are of the same beguiling nature as the serpent gave to Eve. Who veiled his lie with an attitude of "trust me".
Have they dropped the "Theory" of spontaneous life from a pool?
How about documentation of those "earlier forms".

The life of a "living kind" still reproduces the same "living kind".

 

[outhouse]

Lets see here. Your willful ignorance of the evidence means nothing to the world.


I have the whole world behind me, every credible university around the whole world teaches what I posit as higher education and learning.

What you posit is outlawed from children's minds in science class so we don't ruin their minds.


This is viewed a truth for most of the educated world, theist included, and contains substantiated facts to back their position.

You don't have to like the truth, or be part of the majority.


IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[Ouroboros]

...

I'm having a hard time reading the jumbled quotes, so I'll just respond to the last part.

Ouroboros, Therefore, since they believe that "life begets life", How and where did those "earlier forms" originate?

Evolution is about how exiting life changes.

Abiogenesis is about how life came about to be.

They're like the two brothers to the same parents (biology and chemistry). But they're not the same, and the are different fields of study.

We don't "believe" that life begets life. Life does beget life. Even you believe that. Evolution is about how life changes while it's begetting each generation.

And "during the history of the earth"?
See? those are the "lacking details" which are ignored and are of the same beguiling nature as the serpent gave to Eve. Who veiled his lie with an attitude of "trust me".

Evolution, life begets life and is changing through generations, isn't a belief but a well established science with a huge amount of evidence to support it.

Abiogenesis is still up in the air and not completely answered. But that doesn't change that fact of the evidence for evolution since they're not the same issue.

Have they dropped the "Theory" of spontaneous life from a pool?
How about documentation of those "earlier forms".

Well, that's the problem. The earlier forms would be virus and microbes on a size that won't fossilize, but there are other ways of figuring out those things. Anyway, how life started doesn't affect how life continues. Evolution is about how life continues and is changing, not how it was started, even if many times it would be some overlap of scientists and insights. They both fall under biology, but abiogenesis also falls under chemistry and perhaps physics.

The life of a "living kind" still reproduces the same "living kind".

Not quite. We are all unique. Your genetic makeup is different from your mom. It's different from your dad. You are a combination of a 50/50 set from each, and most likely a few unique mutations on your own. Some years ago I learned about every second person has a unique mutation, but some recent papers said it's more common than that, perhaps each of us have several. We're a unique "kinds" in a category of population that we call "human". Being human isn't a state of uniqueness but a state of belonging in a changing set.

That evolution is happening is a fact. The theory of evolution is the model with which we're trying to explain why evolution is happening, and how.