Life From Dirt?

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that gorillas and birds, for example, have not evidenced they have formed any kind of religious tenets. Only humans have done that.

So what?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no doubt that science one day will say that they have worked out how and in what environments life developed.
That sort of thing has already been done but more problems will be sort of sorted out and atheists and skeptics will have more to crow about even if science does not prove natural abiogenesis by doing that.
Headlines to the general public always create a lie.

I have determined, based on what the Bible says, that Adam was created from the dirt or soil directly by the power of God. He was not an infant when created but fully a man. I no longer go along with the idea that man evolved by incremental changes from an Unknown Common ancestral ape. I used to believe that, I no longer find relevance or substance in that idea. Jesus died so that man could be restored to perfection in happiness one day. Everlasting life.

 

[Heyo]

The problem is that gorillas and birds, for example, have not evidenced they have formed any kind of religious tenets. Only humans have done that.

Anthropologists assume that ancestor worship together with mourning and burying the dead is at the beginning of religion. Elephants mourn their dead.

 

[blü 2]

I have determined, based on what the Bible says, that Adam was created from the dirt or soil directly by the power of God. He was not an infant when created but fully a man. I no longer go along with the idea that man evolved by incremental changes from an Unknown Common ancestral ape. I used to believe that, I no longer find relevance or substance in that idea. Jesus died so that man could be restored to perfection in happiness one day. Everlasting life.

You are, of course, entitled to your views, but for my part, I find them incomprehensible.

For example, you say "Adam was created from the dirt or soil directly by the powers of God." By what process did the power of God create a fully grown prototype adult human male?

And more generally, if there are miracles, how do they work? When in Genesis 1:3 God says "Let there be light," what is the process that determines the nature of light and what is the process that brings light into being?

For example, given that the authors of Genesis lived long before the complete range of the spectrum was understood, does the text mean that just the visible spectrum came into being at that time?

Did wireless-range and ultra-violet / x-ray wavelengths already exist? Or did they come into existence at that time too? Or only later?


And when you say Jesus died so that man could be restored to perfection one day, why was his death ─ or indeed any death ─ required to bring this about, given that God is omnipotent?

 

[Brian2]

You have to be kidding. He openly admits to being a science denier, how is that supposed to help you?

Where does he say that?

 

[Brian2]

Why can't you post any such evidence? I have asked several times and you never provide any. Al that you have done is to claim to have evidence.

When one claims to have evidence but refuses to demonstrate any of it then it is rather obvious to most that at best that person is just fooling himself.

I have posted a few things that I consider to be evidence. (maybe not to you, I can't remember)

 

[Brian2]

You're being dishonest. You know perfectly well that science rejects subjective evidence. The scientific method has been explained numerous times.
Calling concrete, fossil evidence subjective does not make it so.

We have the objective fossil record with gaps and the gaps are explained away, subjectively, while assuming the fossil record explains the full scientific theory of evolution. iow science says, "Ahh, we think that the gaps are because of this that and the other, so they mean nothing."

But each step is pretty simple. An observed sequence of the familiar, simple steps, that would produce proto-life is just a matter of time, IMHO.
Magic poofing, on the other hand.....

We're here so the magic worked. The magic being that God used intelligence to put it all together and give life to it.

 

[Brian2]

How?

That is something for science to try to answer.

Great! Now we're getting somewhere. Opinions about values, purpose, propriety and meaning are the magisterium of religion. Also, religion doesn't explain, it doesn't deal with mechanism.
Questions of validity, reason and thinking are the bailiwick of mathematics or logic.
Questions of fact or reality are the realm of science. The existence of God is a question of fact and reality. It is firmly in the realm of science.

Science says it does not know if God exists or not.
I believe theology when it comes to God's existence.

Again, you miss the whole point. Nobody's making a positive claim that God, or, the FSM, or leprechauns 'had nothing to do with it. All we claim is that, inasmuch as alternate explanations are known, Goddidit cannot be logically asserted. We claim God is an unnecessary proposition, not an impossible one.
What we're left with is an assessment of relative probability and explanatory power.

It is not logical to claim that God is unnecessary without even knowing if that is the case. You don't know that pure nature can explain it all.

Inasmuch as the universe exists, and appears to have a sort of beginning, a question of mechanism obtains. This is the realm of science. The question of agency is a horse of a different color. "...the natural forming of the universe must be true" is the most reasonable explanation
Propositions:
1. "Goddidit."
2. Physics did it.
4. "The natural forming of the universe must be true"
5. "The natural forming of the universe" is more likely than Goddidit.

Natural formation is the only explanation. Goddidit is the only claim of of agency.
Physicsis the claim of mechanism.
"More likely" is more likely than "must be."
"Must be" is non sequitur and logically unsupported.

Just as I said, that God is unnecessary is not known.

 

[Brian2]

Yo, Brian

I trust all things are good at your place?

To show that abiogenesis is mathematically impossible is itself impossible unless and until you know how abiogenesis can occur, no?

If it occurs in a manner different to the manner which is said to be mathematically impossible, the 'mathematically impossible' claim, whether well argued or fallacious, is simply irrelevant, no?

No not really, the mathematically impossible claim would still be important to show how wrong some believers were.

It's correct to say that we presently have no chemistry-to-self-reproducing-cell biochemical route-map, but progress is being made, new discoveries are added, and we have an excellent chance of getting there in the end.

Meanwhile, the fact that we're here shows that abiogenesis is possible.

We're here so we got here somehow, I wouldn't like to comment on the probability of finding out a natural pathway, that is as bad as the "Abiogenesis is mathematically impossible" site.

And the evidence shows that it happened on earth more than 3 bn years ago.

That's more than 3 bn years before Yahweh first appears ─ in about 1500 BCE, when [he]'s the god of a particular tribe and a member of the Canaanite pantheon, with, it appears, the usual consort (Asherah, though evidently there was a divorce at some time before the bible was written). As you know, Yahweh starts out as a tribal god in a henotheistic society and doesn't become sole god till the end of the Babylonian captivity (see the first commandment and Judges 11:23-24 for a couple of the many examples in the text).

In a free country you (like the rest of us) are welcome to believe anything ─ well, anything not harmful ─ that you like, but there's a certain comfort in being able to show your claims are well-argued from examinable evidence. And there, unfortunately for your argument, the Genesis account doesn't qualify.

I feel as if I have already answered this post.

 

[Brian2]

Interesting.

It does not matter a bit whether or not
your "god" is a psycho monster.

You arevmaking things up yet again, about
" attacking" the Bible.

You are confused.

Pointing out that some part of the bible is fiction
unless seen in some light other than literal
is no attack. It's much closer to calling for some respect.

The people who do go with " literal or a lie"
are the ones making the Bible an absurd laughing stock.

As I said, it does not matter if Christians are literalists or down the other end of the scale, we all get laughed at for believing the Bible.
And really you don't really know that part of the Bible is fiction. That is an opinion.

 

[Brian2]

That's not what the bible says. The bible acknowledges that there are other gods ─ thou shalt have no other gods before me is probably the most famous example, but here are some more references ─

Exodus 15:11​

Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods? / Who is like thee, majestic in holiness, / terrible in glorious deed, doing wonders?​

​

Numbers 33:4​

upon their gods also the Lord executed judgments.​

​

Judges 11:23​

So the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess.​

​

Psalms 82:1​

God has taken his place in the divine council; / in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.​

​

Psalms 86:8​

There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord, / nor are there any works like thine.​

​

Psalms 95:3​

For the Lord is a great god, / and a great King above all gods.​

​

Psalms 135:5​

For I know that the Lord is great; / and that our Lord is above all gods.​

and this goes on till the end of the Babylonian captivity. Only then do we find the declaration that Yahweh is the sole God.

And I suspect that the gap of more than 3bn years between the origins of life on earth, and H sap sap maybe 150,000 years ago ─ and then Yahweh, 3,500 years ago ─ isn't going to go away any time soon.

Yes there were plenty of gods in those days that people worshipped and they sat in shrines etc and were made out of wood and stone etc.
But not everywhere that translations use the word "god" are actually referring to gods. Sometimes it is humans (Ps 82:1) Sometimes it is angels or demons.
The declaration that Yahweh is the sole God is in the books of Moses. If you want to say that was written at the end of the Babylonian captivity then that is a misrepresentation of the Bible.
God was known by the first humans and the story of God was passed down. The people did not know God's name however, they just reached out for God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where does he say that?

Where he denies evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have posted a few things that I consider to be evidence. (maybe not to you, I can't remember)

That is the problem. You almost surely do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes there were plenty of gods in those days that people worshipped and they sat in shrines etc and were made out of wood and stone etc.
But not everywhere that translations use the word "god" are actually referring to gods. Sometimes it is humans (Ps 82:1) Sometimes it is angels or demons.
The declaration that Yahweh is the sole God is in the books of Moses. If you want to say that was written at the end of the Babylonian captivity then that is a misrepresentation of the Bible.
God was known by the first humans and the story of God was passed down. The people did not know God's name however, they just reached out for God.

How is being honest a misrepresentation of the Bible? Are you saying that one has to lie to present the Bible properly?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Of COURSE science cannot show "god" does not exist. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

What evidence can be there for something that does not exist. Only an idiot will ask for it.

 

[Audie]

What evidence can be there for something that does not exist. Only an idiot will ask for it.

It's like diagnostic almost.

 

[Audie]

Yes there were plenty of gods in those days that people worshipped and they sat in shrines etc and were made out of
But not everywhere that translations use the word "god" are actually referring to gods. Sometimes it is humans (Ps 82:1) Sometimes it is angels or demons.
The declaration that Yahweh is the sole God is in the books of Moses. If you want to say that was written at the end of the Babylonian captivity then that is a misrepresentation of the Bible.
God was known by the first humans and the story of God was passed down. The people did not know God's name however, they just reached out for God.

Christians have statues of wood
and stone in their shrines.
Of their gods.

They pray to those statues.

But I suppose you think that "primitive"
or "pagan" people were stuoid and could not tell the
difference between a symbol and the
( supposed) real God the way sophisticated
" christians" can.

Those Christians who are sooo sophisticated
that they believe in Noah's ark.

And think others must be so stupid.

 

[Audie]

As I said, it does not matter if Christians are literalists or down the other end of the scale, we all get laughed at for believing the Bible.
And really you don't really know that part of the Bible is fiction. That is an opinion.

Nonsense.
People with idiotic beliefs get laughed at.
There's nothing idiotic about belief in god.
Atheists have no problem respecting belief
in god.
The flood story is fiction. You keep
speaking of evidence but you don't mean it.

If " evidence" actually were a vocabulary
word of record in your life you would
Understand that flood is fiction.

Also- the only metric for the Quality of
your beliefs and " interpretations" is...
the worthless opinion of atheists?

It makes zero difference whether christians
thinks "god" is a psycho monster?

In that I actually agree with you, but not
for any reason you'd give.

 

[PureX]

Nonsense.
People with idiotic beliefs get laughed at.
There's nothing idiotic about belief in god.
Atheists have no problem respecting belief
in god.
The flood story is fiction. You keep
speaking of evidence but you don't mean it.

The global flood story is a myth. Myth isn't just fiction, it's a combination of fact and fiction that is intended to convey a cultural ideal, not to convey the fact of a historical person or event.

"Evidence" is simply irrelevant to the function and purpose of myth. Why ever either one of you is bringing it up it's pointless.

 

[Audie]

The global flood story is a myth. Myth isn't just fiction, it's a combination of fact and fiction that is intended to convey a cultural ideal, not to convey the fact of a historical person or event.

"Evidence" is simply irrelevant to the function and purpose of myth. Why ever either one of you is bringing it up it's pointless.

Speaking of pointless.
Yes
News of the obvious and well known about the nature
of myths.

You managed to miss the reason for bringing up
flood, making your little lesson and opinion altogether
worthless.