Picture of Mars vs. the earth. So how did Moses know?

[Brian2]

No, Brian.

The oldest fossils are microfossils of bacteria species, that predated all plant fossils and animal fossils.

Yes I keep forgetting those.
When God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation" that would mean that the earth had to produce the microbial life that the plants evolved from. Then after that the earliest fossils are plants.
But of course the Stromatolites from Western Australia are microbial plants and the Hematite tubes from this site are a bit iffy as to whether they are actual fossils of life or not.
8 Oldest Fossils in the World - Oldest.org
The same can be said about what is/was thought to be fossils of life seen on this site.
'World’s oldest fossils’ may just be pretty rocks

And, no. Here you are not only wrong in each of your these points, you are making up scenarios that have never happened.

The time between the earliest flowering plants (in the Triassic, about 160 million years ago) and the earliest fruit plants, is about over 100 million years later, (in the Eocene epoch, around 52 million years ago).

Both are seed plants, but before the Triassic, the seed plants bore no flowers, and before the Eocene, the seed plants bore no fruits.

The earliest seed plants (that bore no flowers and no fruits), was around 364 million years ago. So there are gap of 200 million years before seed plants started growing flowers.

Now, I am not paleontologist, so if you look up seed plants and flowering plants, I am correct about these times, but I cannot tell you what these primitive plants are, specifically.

All I know is that you are making up things about the embryonic craps. If you don’t know anything about botanical history of early plants, then don’t try to con me with this nonsense about embryonic form.

At least do some little reading and research on the subject.

It almost sounds as if you think that flowering and fruiting plants did not evolve from the first sort of plants.
You do realise what I am doing don't you? I am showing that it is possible to read Genesis with evolution in mind and other things that science has found, and make it work. (That does not mean that the scientific theory of evolution is 100% correct however imo)
And it does work even if you cannot see it.
That is fine, don't feel too badly about it, most sceptics cannot see it. It took a while for me to realise what was being said in Genesis (and other places in the Bible which speak about the early days.)
What it means is that they stick with their YEC reading of Genesis or of course say that the whole thing has to be an allegory.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is integral to the discussion. We're discussing that Mars is "barren and void." Period. And I find it amazing that there is "scientific" conjecture that it may (?) have once housed life. Like maybe there were humans, and elephants, etc. on the planet and they went out of existence no longer to evolve because of a problem with that? What do you think?

Perhaps the problem here is your farcical view of science. Do you really think that scientists mean that there used to be elephants on Mars, when they talk about potential life on Mars? Really? Come on now.

Also, this still doesn't explain how Mars is relevant to the discussion.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, they are barren now, but at least Mars may not have been this barren in earlier times - so, Moses was wrong. Can't blame him, the times that he may have lived in. It is natural that people at that time thought that there was something like God or soul.
But he should not have claimed that he got a carved stone from God.

Moses was wrong because you say Mars may not have been barren in times past? Lol, ok whatever...

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes I keep forgetting those.
When God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation" that would mean that the earth had to produce the microbial life that the plants evolved from. Then after that the earliest fossils are plants.
But of course the Stromatolites from Western Australia are microbial plants and the Hematite tubes from this site are a bit iffy as to whether they are actual fossils of life or not.
8 Oldest Fossils in the World - Oldest.org
The same can be said about what is/was thought to be fossils of life seen on this site.
'World’s oldest fossils’ may just be pretty rocks



It almost sounds as if you think that flowering and fruiting plants did not evolve from the first sort of plants.
You do realise what I am doing don't you? I am showing that it is possible to read Genesis with evolution in mind and other things that science has found, and make it work. (That does not mean that the scientific theory of evolution is 100% correct however imo)
And it does work even if you cannot see it.
That is fine, don't feel too badly about it, most sceptics cannot see it. It took a while for me to realise what was being said in Genesis (and other places in the Bible which speak about the early days.)
What it means is that they stick with their YEC reading of Genesis or of course say that the whole thing has to be an allegory.

What I am saying is that it is God that developed the ability to transform. And I am also saying that despite lookalikes for some people between gorillas and humans, there is nothing to prove/show/demonstrate that God did not make man and then woman from the man.

 

[YoursTrue]

Earth remains the only place in the universe known to harbour life, and fossil evidence from the Earth informs most studies of abiogenesis. The age of the Earth is 4.54 Gy (billion years); the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 Gya (Gy ago), and possibly as early as the Eoarchean Era (3.6–4.0 Gya). In 2017 possible evidence of early life on land was found in 3.48 Gyo (Gy old) geyserite and other related mineral deposits (often found around hot springs and geysers) uncovered in the Pilbara Craton of Western Australia. Other discoveries suggest that life may have appeared on Earth even earlier. As of 2017, microfossils (fossilised microorganisms) within hydrothermal-vent precipitates dated 3.77 to 4.28 Gya in rocks in Quebec may harbour the oldest record of life on Earth, soon after ocean formation 4.4 Gya during the Hadean Eon.

On 4 November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs within the Milky Way. 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting Sun-like stars.

Also see: List of potentially habitable exoplanets - Wikipedia, Superhabitable planet - Wikipedia (more habitable than Earth), Planetary Habitability Laboratory - Wikipedia, ect.

Abiogenesis is not something ordinary. It is beyond human understanding. One may attempt to figure what, maybe how, but it is simply beyond human understanding.

 

[Brian2]

What I am saying is that it is God that developed the ability to transform. And I am also saying that despite lookalikes for some people between gorillas and humans, there is nothing to prove/show/demonstrate that God did not make man and then woman from the man.

There are things in the structure of man that make it look as if man did in some way evolve from the other apes.
But of course it is only that science does not mention God which means that man was formed without any input from God in the scientific perspective. Science does not know that, it is just something that is thought and taught to be so because of the naturalistic methodology.
When science tells us that there could have been life on Mars it is the same thing, it is the naturalistic methodology which enables that, and the thinking that life could just happen anywhere in the right conditions without input from God.
This Godless world view is unfortunately science in this age and it teaches our kids that there is no need for a God even though that is not said directly. Kids are not stupid and they know what is being said and absorb the culture. And science is said to be THE way to find the truth about the world and the input of rogue scientists who make their living from preaching atheism (eg Dawkins) completes the picture for us and so I imagine the number of atheists is growing.

 

[rational experiences]

This telling has nothing to do with planet Mars or planet Earth, but with the very biblical story of creation from its very beginning.

The initial "earth"-concept in the numerous cultural Creation Stories, deals with the similar "dust"-concept of formational processes in modern astrophysics and cosmology. The biblical "void" is similar to the modern "space".

When trying to understand the mythical and religious terms in the creation story, it is important to know that many terms and symbols derives from analogies from the Earth.

The space itself is named as "The Cosmic Ocean" in where stars, star constellation and the very visible contours of the Milky Way are islands and lands which floats in this Cosmic Ocean.

When the Bible initially refers to "waters and earth" (modern term: "dust and gas") this concern the very principles of formation, where these "waters creates firm matters (earth/clay/soil)) via the force of light. In this way, our Solar System is created and first then, the telling are referring to the planet Earth. This explanation solves the known biblical "double earth/Earth creation telling" problem.

Topics used didn't exist.

Water for example is known by man held to earth by mass content.

Dusts known by mass presence as is clay.

If you used in the beginning no advice of created creation can be Idealised.

Otherwise you prove you are a human conscious only by earth planet heavens conditions not there in any beginning.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are things in the structure of man that make it look as if man did in some way evolve from the other apes.
But of course it is only that science does not mention God which means that man was formed without any input from God in the scientific perspective. Science does not know that, it is just something that is thought and taught to be so because of the naturalistic methodology.
When science tells us that there could have been life on Mars it is the same thing, it is the naturalistic methodology which enables that, and the thinking that life could just happen anywhere in the right conditions without input from God.
This Godless world view is unfortunately science in this age and it teaches our kids that there is no need for a God even though that is not said directly. Kids are not stupid and they know what is being said and absorb the culture. And science is said to be THE way to find the truth about the world and the input of rogue scientists who make their living from preaching atheism (eg Dawkins) completes the picture for us and so I imagine the number of atheists is growing.

While you may be right on certain issues, some people come to the conclusion after thought and seeking that there IS a God. After all that about evolution.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Abiogenesis is not something ordinary. It is beyond human understanding. One may attempt to figure what, maybe how, but it is simply beyond human understanding.

Abiogenesis is beyond the understanding of illiterates who have never studied science and religious fantasists who have to trumpet their imaginary God.

Autopoiesis - Wikipedia

Self-replication - Wikipedia, Tholin - Wikipedia, Protocell - Wikipedia

I am not giving the links in hope that you will read it. You probably will never do that. But there may be other people who may want to study them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Abiogenesis is beyond the understanding of illiterates who have never studied science and religious fantasists who have to trumpet their imaginary God.

Autopoiesis - Wikipedia

Self-replication - Wikipedia, Tholin - Wikipedia, Protocell - Wikipedia

I am not giving the links in hope that you will read it. You probably will never do that. But there may be other people who may want to study them.

What astounds me is that you really must think that's how it happened. As if from that living matter further came about. I did very well when I was in school, followed the curriculum and teaching, insofar as being a scholarship winner. Anyway, have a nice day. "Self replication." Ha. I no longer believe it started by a semi? accident.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are things in the structure of man that make it look as if man did in some way evolve from the other apes.
But of course it is only that science does not mention God which means that man was formed without any input from God in the scientific perspective. Science does not know that, it is just something that is thought and taught to be so because of the naturalistic methodology.
When science tells us that there could have been life on Mars it is the same thing, it is the naturalistic methodology which enables that, and the thinking that life could just happen anywhere in the right conditions without input from God.
This Godless world view is unfortunately science in this age and it teaches our kids that there is no need for a God even though that is not said directly. Kids are not stupid and they know what is being said and absorb the culture. And science is said to be THE way to find the truth about the world and the input of rogue scientists who make their living from preaching atheism (eg Dawkins) completes the picture for us and so I imagine the number of atheists is growing.

Also for @metis...I am reading a book written by a preacher called "Christian Atheists." So after a few conversations here I found that book and am reading it. V.e.r.y interesting.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

So you think that whoever wrote Genesis intuitively figured out that the earth was initially devoid of life in the form of vegetation and animals, is that how you see it?

Lifeless land turning fertile is a pretty powerful image, particularly for agrarian folks. It's likely that this is a symbolic image with a powerful psychological basis.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The alternative would be that life on the planet existed before the planet.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what came first. Not even for scientifically ignorant folks of old.

It'd also make for a really odd creation myth.

God: Let there be life!
Adam: What was that? Couldn't hear you with all this life around me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What astounds me is that you really must think that's how it happened. .. I did very well when I was in school, followed the curriculum and teaching, insofar as being a scholarship winner. I no longer believe it started by a semi? accident.

People who get astounded and disbelieve the progress of science do not generally get scholarships in India.
Sure, it is no accident, it is the usual thing. It will happen like that in other planets also if conditions are suitable. Nothing surprising.

 

[YoursTrue]

Lifeless land turning fertile is a pretty powerful image,

I would say.

particularly for agrarian folks. It's likely that this is a symbolic image with a powerful psychological basis.

One thing keeps coming up that I think about in reference to images and psychology. Humans have considered the reasons for life and death. Also eternity. And what happens beyond death.

 

[YoursTrue]

People who get astounded and disbelieve the progress of science do not generally get scholarships in India.
Sure, it is no accident, it is the usual thing. It will happen like that in other planets also if conditions are suitable. Nothing surprising.

Again -- I shall repeat -- I have nothing against what you call the "progress of science." There have been many exciting and beneficial happenings in the name of science.

 

[Brian2]

Also for @metis...I am reading a book written by a preacher called "Christian Atheists." So after a few conversations here I found that book and am reading it. V.e.r.y interesting.

Yes I think it is easier than we imagine to live like an atheist but call ourselves Christians.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes I think it is easier than we imagine to live like an atheist but call ourselves Christians.

Many do. That is true. Good point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, some figure it may not have always been desolate. I know that. It is all conjecture. Now so that you say life started very early in the history of the earth. What's the history? And when would you say, imagine, or think the earth started? (I love the title at least of "potentially habitable exoplanets..." I'm saying what a crock...hey look, you have lots of ideas about many things -- people take sides -- good or bad --

You're saying "what a crock" based on your expansive knowledge of cosmology and astrophysics?
Or based on a fallacious argument from incredulity?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Humans have considered the reasons for life and death. Also eternity. And what happens beyond death.

Yeah, we know about life and death. What happens after death is crystal clear - chemical recycling. As for eternity, sun is going to turn into a red dwarf, Andromeda galaxy is going to bang into Milky way galaxy around 5 billion years from now (Earth will be absorbed by sun before that time). Some time or the other what constituted earth and us is going to be absorbed by a black hole and that will come out as radiation.

A black hole in our own galaxy, Chandra X-Ray photograph at NASA.
First Ever Photograph of Black Hole Captured by Scientists at NASA