The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.

[TagliatelliMonster]

If they do not believe that God exists, then God sends them to the lake of fire forever

Right, that isn't petty at all. What a beacon of moral superiority, this god of yours.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So they had cracks and crevices but no signs of age. That is a contradiction.
They were dirt free,. So someone washed them off. That is a nonsense comment.
They were C-14 dated to be circa 500 AD.
And the depiction of Stegosaurus from circa 900 AD.
All these refute evolution and billions of years forever.

Even if they weren't fakes, it would not refute evolution at all.
You might want to learn a bit about the theory and the evidence in support of it before saying such ignorant things.

 

[McBell]

Since you have only added failed logic to your post, my post stands.

Is farting and sneezing at the same time your body taking a screen shot?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Or else the things that God is said to have done are just allegorical stories.

They're not allegories. They're myths. These are distinct literary forms with formal requirements. The writer of an allegory knows the history he is allegorizing, whereas the mythologist doesn't know the history he is speculating occurred.

How do you know the words mean that God actually did those things in the stories

The versions I've read are in English, my native tongue. They say that a specific god with features they describe who offered an assortment of threats and commandments did those things.

Nobody can know what the writers of those stories intended.

Nor need we. We can know what their words say. If they are vague or ambiguous, they mean nothing specific. They're poetry.

the argument Christians give is to say that Jesus will do what the prophesied Hebrew messiah is supposed to do when Jesus returns to earth.

Yes, but neither of accept that as indicating that Jesus has fulfilled biblical messianic prophecy, which is also their claim.

God is one.

There are countless descripts of gods.

I recently read in a Baha'i book that the six days don't represent 24 hour days. They represent long periods of time during which different kinds of life evolved.

But that's not what scripture says, which refers to a six 24-hour days of creation and one of rest. The biblical writers go to the added effort to let us know that they each contained a morning and an evening, and there is a commandment to emulate this day of rest. The Sabbath goes from sunset to sunset and this also contains a morning and an evening.

I often wonder why so many people, including atheists, believe the OT God is the real God.

You wonder why atheists believe that the OT god is the real one? Wonder no more. They don't. We don't.

times are changing so many Christians no longer believe that these are true stories.

That is the influence humanism has had on Christianity for the last several centuries. Science tells us that the stories never happened, and rational ethics based in reciprocity (Golden Rule, utilitarianism) tell us that slavery and dictatorship are immoral but that atheism and homosexuality are not. The dominant religion in the West has been radically reshaped by these teachings. Many Christians support democracy and reject prosecuting people on charges of impiety or blasphemy, and they've stopped calling people witches and killing them for it where humanism has held sway. Many no longer consider homosexuals an abomination to god and find no reason to persecute them. Some say atheists can be moral people.

These are all huge intellectual advances in Western culture, and they are due to the humanist influence. Contrast that with Islam, which has begun making the same transition but beginning centuries later, and so you still have more of these brutal and primitive practices in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iran, where people are still stoned, have hands cut off, are burned in cages alive, and are prosecuted for religious crimes.

 

[Bthoth]

I'd hardly call it cute. Look how many people it has misled. I'd call it criminal.

I feel the same on many areas but the creation story is easy for any honest soul to overcome. But I 100% agree that it's rude to mislead people wanting an honest answer.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evolution begins at the first replicators. Is this a valid premise or just a convention of convenience?

Abiogenesis, although incomplete, tells us that many things and steps needed to occur before the first replicators. Things needed to first build, to a level of chemical sophistication, before replicators could appear or thrive.

In other words, even if you place a sound RNA replicator in a beaker, it would be of no use, without a supply of monomers to polymerize. A constant supply of monomers would be needed, first, before replicators can make any sense. The monomers, in turn, would need enzymes for synthesis, so the supply does not run out, so the replicators can practice and get more efficient and then start to impact the working protein grid.

The current premise of evolution starting at replicators is like the first replicators are in beakers in a lab with technician feeding all they need to make the theory work. It seems too overly simplified and unnatural; applied science magic and not pure science. There is an entire interface that needs to be constructed to support a replicator model. This theory can be negated by placing RNA replicators in distilled water with nothing but base chemicals that Miller used. It will never amont to anything.

Isn't is also possible that the many potentials, within Abiogenesis, that built that needed platform of chemical sophistication, are still active in life, and are still naturally leading the increasing chemical sophistication we call evolution? In cell cycles, when the DNA condenses into chromosomes, the DNA is taken offline. The protein grid runs the show. In red blood cells, the nucleus and DNA are removed and the protein grid keeps the red blood cells alive. A protein grid would be needed to produce the supplies, needed to make the first replicators viable. The reverse will never happen, since a template is stamp.

The analogy is meeting new person who is private. You learn about them from what you can observed. You may base that assessment, starting on the day you met them; replicators. Isn't it possible that that what came before your meeting, that is kept private, is also important to what you observe today. It may still be causing patterns that define the present and the future we call evolution? This is my theory.

Starting life at the replicators is an assumption and premise, and not a statement of natural fact anymore that defining a person, starting when you say t=0. We can not ignore what came before that.

Could evolution still stand if it was required to start at Abiogenesis, or is it beholden to an arbitrary starting time? Maybe we can reverse engineer this. What would be needed, by RNA, to become a useful replicator, and how would that support be produced. At least this goes back into time using common sense. The first replicators teaming ups with a protein grid that makes the needed supplies would go a long way to a two-way interface; virus and protein grid alliance.

Both Abiogenesis and evolution stand firmly on objectively verifiable evidence and over 170 years of research and discoveries. Yes, there are many unanswered questions concerning abiogenesis, more than evolution, but that does not negate the firm foundation of biogenesis in the early history of lfe.

Abiogenesis did not have any sort of arbitrary starting time. It has been determined that the first organic organisms are found in volcanic thermal vent deposits near the spreading zone of the early continental drift that provided the ideal environment for the beginning of life.

So they had cracks and crevices but no signs of age. That is a contradiction.
They were dirt free,. So someone washed them off. That is a nonsense comment.
They were C-14 dated to be circa 500 AD.
And the depiction of Stegosaurus from circa 900 AD.
All these refute evolution and billions of years forever.

The figurines were indeed pristine and clean and commonly found in the tourist market in Latin America when I lived there, and that was years ago. There are likely over 100,000 made since. Dragons and dinosaur-like figurines have been made by millions in China in all the history of China.

Again . . . One thing that is really humorous or maybe tragic ignorance about what you cited is clay figurines cannot be C-14 dated. Clay pottery used to cook and contain organic food can be dated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So they had cracks and crevices but no signs of age. That is a contradiction.
They were dirt free,. So someone washed them off. That is a nonsense comment.
They were C-14 dated to be circa 500 AD.
And the depiction of Stegosaurus from circa 900 AD.
All these refute evolution and billions of years forever.

Nope, cracks are not necessarily a sign of age. And crevices are a design feature. Do you not even know what a crevice is

And no, you don't understand what a patina is. Look it up.

How the frack do you carbon date ceramics? Wait, you got your claims from a lying source again, didn't you?


That was not a stegosaur. Where is the thagomizer?

If you look at it you will realize that those are not body plates on its back. There is a flower motif going on. Those would be flower petals.


It is a pity that you don't understand the concept of evidence. But then you can't afford to.

 

[Bthoth]

The two kids that were designed to take care of the Garden totally didn't follow the rules. How hard was it? It may have been a mistake to send a troublemaker and allow him to tempt them, but still, rules are rules. Maybe they were a tad bit too naive, and couldn't resist temptation. OK, that's the disadvantage to not having knowledge of good and evil when it stares you in the face.

It looks like it was a good day:

22 And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,' --



From instinctive life, to conscious and capable...... I enjoy the good.

 

[shunyadragon]

One is that you again said that they said the figurines did not have any signs of age. Broken stuff is a sign of age.
Breaking new stuff is very rare especially if it holds value,

No, breaking stuff does not show age.

Again . . . One thing that is really humorous or maybe tragic ignorance about what you cited is clay figurines cannot be C-14 dated. Clay pottery used to cook and contain organic food can be dated.

Top 10 Discoveries of 2020 - Carbon Dating Pottery - Archaeology Magazine - January/February 2021

Worldwide

www.archaeology.org

AIG and you do not believe in Carbon-14 dating anyway, because it documents humans have been around for over 60,000 years.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope, cracks are not necessarily a sign of age. And crevices are a design feature. Do you not even know what a crevice is

And no, you don't understand what a patina is. Look it up.

How the frack do you carbon date ceramics? Wait, you got your claims from a lying source again, didn't you?


That was not a stegosaur. Where is the thagomizer?

If you look at it you will realize that those are not body plates on its back. There is a flower motif going on. Those would be flower petals.


It is a pity that you don't understand the concept of evidence. But then you can't afford to.

Big fail of reasoning on your part.

I do not buy broken pieces as new and do not break them right away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Big fail of reasoning on your part.

I do not buy broken pieces as new and do not break them right away.

No, the fail is yours. Cracks form quite often in ceramics. And it is rather odd that you think that they didn't have any arms or legs.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The existence of God, according to the word of God, is not a matter of faith.

That would not stand in a court of law. The law requires proof. So, it will require the proof of God and the proof that God said such and such thing. It will also ask if it is writing or it is verbal. If someone says that the stone where God wrote that is broken and destroyed, then the court will ask if the fragments of that stone are available or not? Was the stone a granite or basaltic or it was sandstone, because that may decide the location. If verbal, then court will ask who heard it, what is the proof of existence of that person and his reliability.

As such, the above sentence is just an assertion with no evidence.

 

[metis]

C-14 is okay up to about 3500 years then the flood's effects distort results.
So 2500 year old is okay.

Depending on the area, it can go back up to about 30,000 years.

 

[F1fan]

So they had cracks and crevices but no signs of age. That is a contradiction.
They were dirt free,. So someone washed them off. That is a nonsense comment.
They were C-14 dated to be circa 500 AD.

So you are accepting dating results unless they are over 6000 years?

And the depiction of Stegosaurus from circa 900 AD.

Let's say these figurines were from that time, why would that mean that dinosaurs existed that recently when all the evidence say they died off 65 millions years ago? A more likely reason these people in 900AD could carve a Stegosaurus is the same reason we know of them today: they found a fossilized Steg. This is something called Occam's Razor. If faced with a number of solutions to a problem that has numerous options the most likely answer is usually the correct one. Dinos existing 1100 years ago is not possible.

All these refute evolution and billions of years forever.

Not in any way. Notice you offer no evidence and no explanation how the science demonstrating evolution is incorrect, just a blanket claim that evidence refutes.

You still haven't explained why your Creator designed genes that cause defects and cancer in children. Nor have you even demonstrated this God of Bible is real versus a literary character. Is there a problem?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution begins at the first replicators. Is this a valid premise or just a convention of convenience?

Biological evolution begins with the first life.

The current premise of evolution starting at replicators is like the first replicators are in beakers in a lab with technician feeding all they need to make the theory work. It seems too overly simplified and unnatural

You describe an artificial situation then call it unnatural.

Starting life at the replicators is an assumption and premise, and not a statement of natural fact anymore that defining a person, starting when you say t=0. We can not ignore what came before that.

The universe has been evolving since T=0.

[1] The first stage was material (or physical) evolution, where the fundamental particles and forces first appeared and, under the influence of dark matter and nucleogenesis (initially in the primeval fog and then later in stars), began arranging themselves into the periodic table of elements arranged as filaments of galaxies of solar systems. That's material evolution, and will continue indefinitely to an unknown endpoint, maybe this one: "In physical cosmology, the Big Rip is a theory which describes the ultimate fate of the universe. According to this theory, everything in the universe, even spacetime itself will be torn apart by the expansion of the universe until distances between particles will become infinite."

[2] Then comes chemical evolution from atoms and simple molecules into life (abiogenesis).

[3] Then comes biological evolution, where life becomes the tree of life, a collection of living and extinct life forms ranging from unicellular life to multicellular animal life with nervous systems and brains.

[4] Then comes psychological evolution, as consciousness evolves in minds from bare awareness to instinctual life to intellectual life featuring the use of language and explicit symbolic reasoning.

[5] And finally, cultural evolution, where man develops civilization, culture, and technology.

Each of these stages requires all earlier stages to have made them possible. It is convenient and useful to identify and name them as I have, but they are all physical evolution including the advent of navigation and architecture, various cuisines and clothing styles, etc.. It's the story of how reality, from the initial symmetry breaking to the recent resolution to keep the American government open, has evolved.

No answer I see.

That's by design. You can't make a man see what he has a stake in not seeing.

Where did the first living creature come into being?
What was its first offspring?
What was the offspring of the first offspring?
What was the 4th generation?

Can we assume that is part of an argument against naturalism? If so, it doesn't accomplish that. I'd explain why, but why bother, right? You don't see answers.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, - Romans 1:18-22

Why do you think any of this matters to critical thinkers? These are things for believers to worry about.

If they do not believe that God exists, then God sends them to the lake of fire forever

This, too. I'm an atheist, so I don't live under that cloud. That's for people willing to believe such things to worry about.

"To the philosophy of atheism belongs the credit of robbing death of its horror and its terror. It brought about the abolition of Hell." - Joseph Lewis

God has given ample evidence of His existence. Rose from the dead.

Impossible, just as you can't unburn paper. In both cases, the best one can do is collect the organic residue and use it as ingredients to build a new organism. Thus, you can bury a corpse and have a tree grow from the decomposing matter, but you can't revivify a corpse once it has decomposed beyond a certain point. You can't rebuild the ribosomes and mitochondria. You can't restore cellular metabolism, which depends on physical structure as well as chemistry (see oxidative phosphorylation and electron transport or protein synthesis).

 

[Aupmanyav]

And the depiction of Stegosaurus from circa 900 AD.

That is not Stegosaurus but the dragons of human imagination, and people all over the world have tried to make them as ferocious as possible.

Dragons - Google Search

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not Stegosaurus but the dragons of human imagination, and people all over the world have tried to make them as ferocious as possible.

Dragons - Google Search

It is hard to say what it is for sure. The plates may be a stylized flower background and not part of the animal. If one takes them off it looks a lot like a young Burmese rhino:

Sumatran rhinoceros - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And you can see, no thagomizer on the carving.

 

[setarcos]

Does it? I do not fully agree with the author of that work.

I can't say whether I fully agree either since I haven't studied Spinoza thoroughly.
However, from the article and from what I have read of Spinoza and Einstein, yes...it does.

How would we know if Spinoza's God had intelligence?

By reading his works. Of course, whether that God exists in reality and has intelligence (definitionally Gods do if they exist) that is an entirely different matter. I was just commenting on the article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't say whether I fully agree either since I haven't studied Spinoza thoroughly.
However, from the article and from what I have read of Spinoza and Einstein, yes...it does.

By reading his works. Of course, whether that God exists in reality and has intelligence (definitionally Gods do if they exist) that is an entirely different matter. I was just commenting on the article.

From what I have read of Einstein his attitude was that if there is a God it is a deist one. A God that just wound the universe up and let it go. Which is essentially no different from no God at all.

 

[metis]

From what I have read of Einstein his attitude was that if there is a God it is a deist one. A God that just wound the universe up and let it go. Which is essentially no different from no God at all.

He said he believed in "Spinoza's God", which is pantheistic or panentheistic as Spinoza didn't differentiate between the two.