Life From Dirt?

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, selective blindness. You'll see what you want to see, You'll believe what you want to believe...

...selective blindness, plus confirmation biases, BIG TIME!

Ok.

Look at the order of Genesis 1, for just the creation of life:

1. Plants - 3rd day (1:11-12)
2. Marine life & birds - 5th day (1:20-22)
3. Land animals - 6th day (1:24-25)
4. Humans - 6th day (1:26-27)

Genesis 2 is the following:

1. Human (Adam only) (2:7)
2. Plants (garden of Eden) (2:8-9)
3. Land animals & birds (2:18-19)
4. Human (Eve) (2:21-23)

Before God created Adam in verse 2:7, an earlier verse clearly stated there were no plants whatsoever (2:5), when he created Adam:



These 2 verses (2:5 and 2:7) completely contradicted Genesis 1, when vegetation (1:11-12) and humans (1:26-27) were created.

This revealed that Genesis 1 & Genesis 2 are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORIES, and they can't be both right.

But of course, as I usually see creationists, like you, @YoursTrue , you will ignore it, by making some lame excuses as you usually do.

First of all, I don't know what you mean by the term "creationist." I do believe God created everything, that is what the Bible teaches. But there are those one might lump in the term creationism that I do not agree with.
A number of creationist ideas actually conflict with the Bible. Here are a couple of examples, and we see these ideas projected on these boards by some creationists.
One is the considered length of the six days of creation. Some creationists insist that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days. But the word 'day' in the Bible can refer to a considerably longer time than 24 hours. Take, for instance, chapter 2 of Genesis, which you put forth as a contradiction of the first account in Genesis 1. It is not, but please do realize that a day can be expressed in different ways. Psalm 90:4 also expresses it this way regarding the day: "For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past, Just as a watch during the night."
And as we see on these boards, some creationists keep asserting that the earth is just a few thousand years old, but according to the Bible, the earth and the universe existed before the six days of creation. Genesis 1:1.
I have no objection to credible scientific research that indicates the earth may be billions of years old.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The following is also a citation from Einstein: Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

Wow, Einstein believed Jesus was a “real person”, from the details presented in the Gospels.

Thanks for posting that!

It says nothing about evolution, though…

As per the topic of the thread Einstein believed in the natural existence and evolution of life billions of years old.

Sir, I think you are the one misrepresenting his views, to suit your bias…

Can you post a reputable source supporting your claim that Einstein accepted common descent evolution, i.e., from a common ancestor? I wouldn’t doubt it, I’d just like to read it.

 

[Valjean]

First of all, I don't know what you mean by the term "creationist." I do believe God created everything, that is what the Bible teaches. But there are those one might lump in the term creationism that I do not agree with.

But doesn't "creationism" perfectly reflect your mythos?
"...that is what the Bible teaches." So? What does the Silmarillion teach, or the Yajur-Veda?
You haven't yet established the authority of this "Bible."

A number of creationist ideas actually conflict with the Bible. Here are a couple of examples, and we see these ideas projected on these boards by some creationists.
One is the considered length of the six days of creation. Some creationists insist that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days. But the word 'day' in the Bible can refer to a considerably longer time than 24 hours. Take, for instance, chapter 2 of Genesis, which you put forth as a contradiction of the first account in Genesis 1. It is not, but please do realize that a day can be expressed in different ways. Psalm 90:4 also expresses it this way regarding the day: "For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past, Just as a watch during the night."
And as we see on these boards, some creationists keep asserting that the earth is just a few thousand years old, but according to the Bible, the earth and the universe existed before the six days of creation. Genesis 1:1.
I have no objection to credible scientific research that indicates the earth may be billions of years old.

How is it you've concluded that Biblical mythology is a reliable record? Is there objective evidence?
Doesn't every culture have it's own sacred mythology? What makes yours any more credible than the Zulu's, the Norsemen's, or the Mayans'?

 

[blü 2]

Can you post a reputable source supporting your claim that Einstein accepted common descent evolution, i.e., from a common ancestor? I wouldn’t doubt it, I’d just like to read it.

Best I could quickly locate is this (my emphasis, of course) ─

" ... a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs."​

​

From Alf's article 1939 in Latham's Quarterly.

No, he doesn't expressly refer to accepting that all life on earth stems from a single abiogenesis event, nor did he have in 1939 the evidence that we have today about the very basic things that all of Earth's living things (so far) have in common, which point to a single origin at least 3.5 billion years ago, and maybe more than 4 billion years ago.

However, it was the case in 1939, and it's still the case, that if a sound scientific argument can be presented to science showing that this is wrong, then the very least that's in it for the relevant scientist is a Nobel Prize.

I note however that Christian fundamentalists to date have never put even the weensiest scientific scratch on the modern theory of evolution. Please correct me if that's wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And why not? You don’t think there are any?

You’ve quoted experts, too. Nothing wrong with that.

Newton's personal beliefs are irrelevant. Newton isn't remembered / referenced for his personal beliefs. Instead, it's done for what his work in physics, the stuff he could actually demonstrate.

Newton for example wrote FAR MORE on alchemy then on physics. He was actually an alchemist first and physics was, in the totality of his work, a mere footnote.

But nobody cares about his alchemy work, right?
If it wasn't for his work in physics, nobody would know the dude.

His beliefs on alchemy are irrelevant. And the same goes for his religious beliefs.

You may quote him as an expert concerning his laws of motion. But to appeal to him as an "authority" on anything else simply because he was "smart" or whatever is just fallacious.


I can also point to Hawking and say he said that there's no need for god(s). It would be just as fallacious.

 

[gnostic]

First of all, I don't know what you mean by the term "creationist." I do believe God created everything, that is what the Bible teaches. But there are those one might lump in the term creationism that I do not agree with.
A number of creationist ideas actually conflict with the Bible. Here are a couple of examples, and we see these ideas projected on these boards by some creationists.
One is the considered length of the six days of creation. Some creationists insist that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days. But the word 'day' in the Bible can refer to a considerably longer time than 24 hours. Take, for instance, chapter 2 of Genesis, which you put forth as a contradiction of the first account in Genesis 1. It is not, but please do realize that a day can be expressed in different ways. Psalm 90:4 also expresses it this way regarding the day: "For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past, Just as a watch during the night."
And as we see on these boards, some creationists keep asserting that the earth is just a few thousand years old, but according to the Bible, the earth and the universe existed before the six days of creation. Genesis 1:1.
I have no objection to credible scientific research that indicates the earth may be billions of years old.

You are ignoring that the order of creations of the 2 chapters differ, hence contradicting each other.

That's the contradictions I was addressing that are clear as "clear day", if you were to follow the sequence of each, regarding to the creation of humans, animals and plants.

The question is, will you address the order of events that Genesis 2 contradict the order in Genesis 1?

The length of day, are totally different issues.

Nothing in Genesis 1, speak of "hours", nor of "thousand years".

But context of Genesis 1 speak of each day, being a cycle of "evening and morning", hence the context is "day".

The thousand years is a matter of interpretation, NOT FOUND IN GENESIS 1. You will only find a day being equated to a thousand-year, only in passages of two completely different books in the Bible (Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8).

A sound scholar would focus on the contexts in passages in question (what Genesis 1 is actually saying) and not based on apologetic interpretations from unrelated books.

But you quoted my post, without actually addressing any of my points with some unrelated points. You are evading, by going off the tangent.

So are you going to address why the sequences of events different between Genesis 1 & Genesis 2?

Or are you going to continue bury your head in the sand? Or dodgedly change the subject as you just did?

 

[shunyadragon]

Wow, Einstein believed Jesus was a “real person”, from the details presented in the Gospels.

Thanks for posting that!

It says nothing about evolution, though…

Many atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, and others believe Jesus was a real person, so what.?!?!!?!?

Again and again . . .

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic god, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "naïve"[3] and "childlike".[14] In a 1947 letter he stated that "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."[15] In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."

Sir, I think you are the one misrepresenting his views, to suit your bias…

Can you post a reputable source supporting your claim that Einstein accepted common descent evolution, i.e., from a common ancestor? I wouldn’t doubt it, I’d just like to read it

Your demands for specific quotes reflect your scientific illiteracy and your ancient tribal agenda without science. You of course propose religion without science.

It would help if you would accept Einstein as Einstein and not based on your religious agenda.

Einstein was not a biologist his main concerns were physics and math but nonetheless.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, and giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research."

Albert Einstein

 

[YoursTrue]

You are ignoring that the order of creations of the 2 chapters differ, hence contradicting each other.

That's the contradictions I was addressing that are clear as "clear day", if you were to follow the sequence of each, regarding to the creation of humans, animals and plants.

The question is, will you address the order of events that Genesis 2 contradict the order in Genesis 1?

The length of day, are totally different issues.

Nothing in Genesis 1, speak of "hours", nor of "thousand years".

But context of Genesis 1 speak of each day, being a cycle of "evening and morning", hence the context is "day".

The thousand years is a matter of interpretation, NOT FOUND IN GENESIS 1. You will only find a day being equated to a thousand-year, only in passages of two completely different books in the Bible (Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8).

A sound scholar would focus on the contexts in passages in question (what Genesis 1 is actually saying) and not based on apologetic interpretations from unrelated books.

But you quoted my post, without actually addressing any of my points with some unrelated points. You are evading, by going off the tangent.

So are you going to address why the sequences of events different between Genesis 1 & Genesis 2?

Or are you going to continue bury your head in the sand? Or dodgedly change the subject as you just did?

Before I go into a discussion in Genesis 1 and 2, I would like to mention that the 7th "day" of creation as recorded in Genesis 1 has no end attached to it. Every other day, the first 6 days, has a beginning and an end. Not the 7th day. I hope you can acknowledge that as realistic before we go on. Thank you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Before I go into a discussion in Genesis 1 and 2, I would like to mention that the 7th "day" of creation as recorded in Genesis 1 has no end attached to it. Every other day, the first 6 days, has a beginning and an end. Not the 7th day. I hope you can acknowledge that as realistic before we go on. Thank you.

Regardless, the mythology of Genesis is not remotely realistic.

Further discussion based on an ancient tribal religious agenda will not help your case.

 

[gnostic]

Before I go into a discussion in Genesis 1 and 2, I would like to mention that the 7th "day" of creation as recorded in Genesis 1 has no end attached to it. Every other day, the first 6 days, has a beginning and an end. Not the 7th day. I hope you can acknowledge that as realistic before we go on. Thank you.

Genesis and other books attributed to Moses was never about being historical, nor scientific, YoursTrue. The focus of these books were always about the covenants, between god and Abraham, and between God and Moses:

• That the land (Canaan) will one day belong to Abraham’s descendants (the twelve tribes of Jacob-Israel), and
• that the laws (Torah) would be core essence to the people of Israel.

The Genesis Creation was never meant to be real, it is a parable that have two essential components:

1. …the moral messages, obedience to God;
2. …and the 6-creation was merely symbolic to instituting the 6 work days plus the sabbath.

You, like every other Christian creationists have focused on the creation part of the story (Genesis 1), that you have forgotten that the real focus to the story, was really about the law of sabbath.

 

[YoursTrue]

Genesis and other books attributed to Moses was never about being historical, nor scientific, YoursTrue. The focus of these books were always about the covenants, between god and Abraham, and between God and Moses:

• That the land (Canaan) will one day belong to Abraham’s descendants (the twelve tribes of Jacob-Israel), and
• that the laws (Torah) would be core essence to the people of Israel.

The Genesis Creation was never meant to be real, it is a parable that have two essential components:

1. …the moral messages, obedience to God;
2. …and the 6-creation was merely symbolic to instituting the 6 work days plus the sabbath.

You, like every other Christian creationists have focused on the creation part of the story (Genesis 1), that you have forgotten that the real focus to the story, was really about the law of sabbath.

If you're going to respond to me or make your point, please do try to understand that I am not a "creationist," whatever you mean by that term. So if you cannot address me without the term categorizing me as a "creationist," please do understand we won't be discussing this much because of your unwillingness to understand some terms. Thank you. I will reiterate, however, for educational purposes, that the seventh day of CREATION is not said to have an end. Please keep that in mind as you continue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you're going to respond to me or make your point, please do try to understand that I am not a "creationist," whatever you mean by that term. So if you cannot address me without the term categorizing me as a "creationist," please do understand we won't be discussing this much because of your unwillingness to understand some terms. Thank you. I will reiterate, however, for educational purposes, that the seventh day of CREATION is not said to have an end. Please keep that in mind as you continue.

So you now accept the theory of evolution. Cool. When did that happen?

 

[shunyadragon]

If you're going to respond to me or make your point, please do try to understand that I am not a "creationist," whatever you mean by that term. So if you cannot address me without the term categorizing me as a "creationist," please do understand we won't be discussing this much because of your unwillingness to understand some terms. Thank you. I will reiterate, however, for educational purposes, that the seventh day of CREATION is not said to have an end. Please keep that in mind as you continue

You believe God Created everything. I believe in God and I am a Creationist. The question remains on how you consider the Genesis and the Pentateuch description of history and how you view the sciences of evolution, and life billions of years old. Apparently, you indeed reject the sciences of evolution without any knowledge of science.

If the time issue is not a problem how do the billions of years of the natural progressive complexity of life in the geologic strata fit in your worldview?


What is apparent at present is you are an Old Earth Creationist rejecting evolution and the scientific history of our earth. I am a Theistic Evolutionist and accept the sciences of evolution and the physical history of the earth and universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wow, Einstein believed Jesus was a “real person”, from the details presented in the Gospels.

Thanks for posting that!

It says nothing about evolution, though…




Sir, I think you are the one misrepresenting his views, to suit your bias…

Can you post a reputable source supporting your claim that Einstein accepted common descent evolution, i.e., from a common ancestor? I wouldn’t doubt it, I’d just like to read it.

More on Einstein's view of God and religion.

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Prompted by his colleague L. E. J. Brouwer, Einstein read the philosopher Eric Gutkind's book Choose Life,[17] a discussion of the relationship between Jewish revelation and the modern world. On January 3, 1954, Einstein sent the following reply to Gutkind: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. .... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."[18][19][20] In 2018 his letter to Gutkind was sold for $2.9 million.[21]

On 22 March 1954, Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[22]

In his book Ideas and Opinions (1954) Einstein stated, "In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests."[3] In December 1922 Einstein said the following on the idea of a saviour, "Denominational traditions I can only consider historically and psychologically; they have no other significance for me.[23]

 

[gnostic]

Thank you. I will reiterate, however, for educational purposes, that the seventh day of CREATION is not said to have an end. Please keep that in mind as you continue.

And I have already addressed your reply, that Genesis Creation is not really science of Earth history (Including life).

The narrative of Genesis 1 (the 6-day creation), plus the 7th day in verses 2:2-3, are merely parable or allegory to the 7-day a week, where the 7th day is day of rest, the sabbath. There is a law in regarding to the sabbath, first mentioned in Exodus 16.

Have you not noticed that Jews don’t really focus so much on the 7-day in Genesis 1 & 2, because all the ”creating” weren’t really the focus of the Jewish Torah. The really meaning to Genesis 7-day is the torah of Sabbath, (Exodus 16) not to do work on this holy day of rest.

You do understand what parable is, don’t you?

You do understand the creation is merely a story for the sabbath, and not about creating earth or humans, but about keeping the sabbath, don’t you?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

…the evidence that we have today about the very basic things that all of Earth's living things (so far) have in common, which point to a single origin at least 3.5 billion years ago, and maybe more than 4 billion years ago.

This is not completely accurate. There is no evidence that ‘points to a single origin’. The Tree of Life is no tree; it’s a bush, with many different organisms appearing abruptly, early in the emergence of phyla, the very ones existing today.

The other evidence which is claimed for common ancestry — the similarity of genes found in diverse organisms — is interpreted as “shared” genes, supposedly indicating a relatedness; whereas it could also be interpreted that they were simply duplicated by the Creator, when Jehovah was forming living things with similar features from different families, like vertebrae, ears, teeth, etc. in both felidae and canidae. It doesn’t have to indicate relatedness, it could indicate both had the same Creator, using similar body plans, together with similar genes.

Those species within each family would still be in nested hierarchies.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is not completely accurate. There is no evidence that ‘points to a single origin’. The Tree of Life is no tree; it’s a bush, with many different organisms appearing abruptly, early in the emergence of phyla, the very ones existing today.

The other evidence which is claimed for common ancestry — the similarity of genes found in diverse organisms — is interpreted as “shared” genes, supposedly indicating a relatedness; whereas it could also be interpreted that they were simply duplicated by the Creator, when Jehovah was forming living things with similar features from different families, like vertebrae, ears, teeth, etc. in both felidae and canidae. It doesn’t have to indicate relatedness, it could indicate both had the same Creator, using similar body plans, together with similar genes.

Not immediately accurate?!?!?!? Your ignorance of science is standing up front.

Yes, based on present evidence and the fossil found ~3.5 billion years ago in the rocks formed in mid-ocean hydrothermal vents support the beginning of life in this environment at this time.
Totally devoid of any science, and made up to justify an ancient tribal agenda.

Those species within each family would still be in nested hierarchies.

No

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Newton for example wrote FAR MORE on alchemy then on physics. He was actually an alchemist first and physics was, in the totality of his work, a mere footnote.

But to appeal to him as an "authority" on anything else simply because he was "smart" or whatever is just fallacious.

Actually, he wrote more extensively on religious subjects, than on any other topic.
And he did “study the Bible daily.”
(I can find the link, but i doubt you’d appreciate it.)

He would’ve found the contradictions. (That is what this particular conversation with gnostic was about, btw.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Totally devoid of any science, and made up to justify an ancient tribal agenda.

You mean just like the explanation / interpretation of the abrupt appearance of unique body plans in the Cambrian explosion.

Made up to justify the bias.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I note however that Christian fundamentalists to date have never put even the weensiest scientific scratch on the modern theory of evolution. Please correct me if that's wrong.

I don’t know about‘Christian fundamentalists,’ but the evidence discovered in the Cambrian explosion (in fact, all animal explosions, like the mammalian), and the evidence the fossil record provides (bemoaned by evolution supporters like Colin Patterson & Stephen Jay Gould), are fine testaments to the explanatory deficits of evolution.

Take care.