"Where Did Life Come From?" A 13 Minute Primer For Creationists

[Hockeycowboy]

This is as absurd as the flood itself.

Grief! What a strawman, that I’ve answered again, again, and again!

One last time, very briefly: read Psalms 104 8-9.

NLT:
“6You clothed the earth with floods of water,

water that covered even the mountains.

7At your command, the water fled;

at the sound of your thunder, it hurried away.

8Mountains rose and valleys sank

to the levels you decreed.”


Now, you go figure out what that means.

I’m through with those who don’t want to reason.

 

[Valjean]

After probably millions of years of evolutionary changes, the Earth no doubt contained many different species! Only representatives of those Animalia Families were needed.

Balderdash. You can't rebuild a wrecked building with only the top storey. You have to replace the foundation and lower storeys before you replace the penthouse. The bacteria, archaea, fungi, &c are the most important parts of a viable ecosystem. Everything's interconnected.

Here’s an article linking a paper that discusses just how many species the Ark could hold:

‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

Ridiculous! What about food for the animals, and waste management, ventilation, &c. and the specialized environmental conditions needed? How were the fish and coral housed; the arctic and tropical species, the ants, the sea turtles?

Even a modest zoo is a major enterprise in logistics.

If you seriously willing to review discussion of the problems with the flood/ark story I'd recommend Aron Ra's series of videos on the subject: aron ra. noah's flood - YouTube

 

[Valjean]

Nope, I do not.

I agree w/ certain evolutionary changes within many genera and up to some Family taxa. But all organisms stay within their Family groups.

No, they don't, and there are mountains of empirical evidence supporting this.

 

[Jose Fly]

Quite a remarkable conspiracy. Usually just two people have a hard time keeping a secret, but millions of unrelated scientists?
Color me skeptical.

I'm not sure "conspiracy" is the right word for it. The way I understand it, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that this is Satan's world and as a result, he (Satan) controls or influences much of what goes on in it, including much of "secular science". So according to that belief, it's not that the world's scientists are actively and intentionally plotting to turn people away from Jehovah, it's more that they're unwitting pawns in Satan's scheme.

Conversely, as @Hockeycowboy noted earlier, it's the ID creationists who are "searching for the truth" who aren't under Satanic influence. (Of course when I pointed out that Behe accepts universal common descent as real, hockeycowboy avoided it as he's done before)

It's a rather simplistic and obvious mechanism to avoid having to think too deeply (or think at all) about science that conflicts with their beliefs, but apparently it works for them.

Your appeal to magic makes me suspect that your distrust of science is underlain by a lack of familiarity with the disciplines involved and their relevant findings

As with pretty much all Jehovah's Witnesses, their distrust of science isn't really about how much they know about any particular field or anything like that, but rather is about the coping mechanism we're talking about above.

They believe in a particular version of history as revealed by Jehovah. Much of science conflicts with that history. Since revealed knowledge from Jehovah is infallible, the science must be wrong. But why would scientists across the world and across history reach and promote such faulty conclusions? Because Satan is influencing them as part of his effort to turn humanity away from Jehovah.

A corollary to that is how there is also a small, righteous, and determined group of good scientists who aren't under Satan's influence and are working to show how reality truly does line up with the version of history as revealed by Jehovah.

What fascinates me is how the Witnesses here at RF employ and sometimes even describe this model, but if you dare hint to them that their religious beliefs play a role in how they view science, they seem to get quite upset. It's as if they're embarrassed by it or something.

 

[Valjean]

Grief! What a strawman, that I’ve answered again, again, and again!

One last time, very briefly: read Psalms 104 8-9.

NLT:
“6You clothed the earth with floods of water,

water that covered even the mountains.

7At your command, the water fled;

at the sound of your thunder, it hurried away.

8Mountains rose and valleys sank

to the levels you decreed.”


Now, you go figure out what that means.

I’m through with those who don’t want to reason.

Where'd all the water come from? Where'd all the energy come from? How was Earth not sterilized by the heat alone?

 

[Valjean]

Grief! What a strawman, that I’ve answered again, again, and again!

One last time, very briefly: read Psalms 104 8-9.

NLT:
“6You clothed the earth with floods of water,

water that covered even the mountains.

7At your command, the water fled;

at the sound of your thunder, it hurried away.

8Mountains rose and valleys sank

to the levels you decreed.”


Now, you go figure out what that means.

I’m through with those who don’t want to reason.

Why do you keep quoting scripture as evidence? The Bible isn't a textbook or research study. I could make any claim about anything and find some scriptural support somewhere.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why do you think that, when all the evidence, and all the experts in the field think otherwise?

“All”? Not all do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, I do not.

I agree w/ certain evolutionary changes within many genera and up to some Family taxa. But all organisms stay within their Family groups.

I see, like humans being primates for example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, no.

After probably millions of years of evolutionary changes, the Earth no doubt contained many different species! Only representatives of those Animalia Families were needed.

Here’s an article linking a paper that discusses just how many species the Ark could hold:

‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

Yes, a big boat, with far too few species on it, would have floated. Until the first large wave hit it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“All”? Not all do.

All serious experts in the field do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Grief! What a strawman, that I’ve answered again, again, and again!

One last time, very briefly: read Psalms 104 8-9.

NLT:
“6You clothed the earth with floods of water,

water that covered even the mountains.

7At your command, the water fled;

at the sound of your thunder, it hurried away.

8Mountains rose and valleys sank

to the levels you decreed.”


Now, you go figure out what that means.

I’m through with those who don’t want to reason.

We know how old The mountains are. That is only a failed claim of the Bible.

 

[Valjean]

“All”? Not all do.

You're quibbling. You take my meaning.

 

[Skwim]

Again, no.

After probably millions of years of evolutionary changes, the Earth no doubt contained many different species! Only representatives of those Animalia Families were needed.

I'm sorry, but you simply don't understand evolution and the concept of taxonomy and its ranks, and I'm not the guy to bring you up to speed. So until you do be prepared to be slammed for your ignorance.

Here’s an article linking a paper that discusses just how many species the Ark could hold:

‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

And from the article,

"The students said it was not clear if all the animals would actually be able to fit on board."

.​

 

[Skwim]

Grief! What a strawman, that I’ve answered again, again, and again!

One last time, very briefly: read Psalms 104 8-9.

NLT:
“6You clothed the earth with floods of water,

water that covered even the mountains.

7At your command, the water fled;

at the sound of your thunder, it hurried away.

8Mountains rose and valleys sank

to the levels you decreed.”

Now, you go figure out what that means.

I’m through with those who don’t want to reason.

And you read Genesis 7:19-20

6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.​

So which was it

Either way, both are pretty silly, aren't they.



OR are you actually saying there were no mountains or valleys until after the flood had started to receed?

Psalms 104:7-8
7At your command, the water fled;
at the sound of your thunder, it hurried away.
8Mountains rose and valleys sank
to the levels you decreed.”

​

Please say no.

.

 

[Valjean]

If nothing is done to stem global warming, we stand to raise global sea levels 15 cubits once again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think it takes a university degree to see through a charade. "Looks like"....so it "must be"....?

Where do "might have's" and "could have' '" or "must have's" fit into factual science?

Seriously, are you still on this?
How many times must it be explained to you that such is common language in scientific circles?
That it is about intellectual honesty and tentative stances instead of expressions of factual absolute certainty?

This is not the language of fact, but the language of uncertainty.

The language of science.
Which deals with the intellectual honest idea of tentative truths instead of expressions of dishonest / unjustified certainty.

[qutoe]
Creation can use those same words and come to a completely different conclusion.....[/quote]

And to do so, it would have to necessarily either ignore data or use false premises or invalid / unsound logic.
Because actually using the data of reality currently at our disposal, demonstrable / accurate premises and sound/valid logic, will not reach different conclusions.

.how does science know that there is no Creator?

Science says no such thing.

It assumes there isn't

It doesn't.

. Assumptions can be dead wrong.

They can. Likely why science doesn't assuming unfalsifiable nonsense.
Does science include a creator in cosmology, biology, etc? No. Reason is that there is no reason to include such. Reason is not because it is "predisposed against the idea". It isn't.

The thing is that science will only include those things that have a measureable impact / influence on the phenomena it's attepting to explain.

There's about as much reason to include a "creator" in cosmology as there is reason to include undetectable graviton pixies in relativity: none.


Creationists are those people who WANT to include such a creator.
Upto them to show why such a creator is at all necessary.
So far, the only reason they seem to have is "because this book says so and we believe it"

 

[tas8831]

Nope..doesn’t fit.

Doesn't fit what?

Those ratios of the Ark would only be useless evidence, if other non-powered, barge-like ships from the same era utilized those ratios.

And?

Yet, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the vessel described, was almost a cube! Another myth from the same era described the boat as circular! These do not work...the Ark in Genesis, does.

Right - so I drive the fastest car in the world. Oh, I can't show it to you, and nobody has seen it. But see - here is a paper that shows wheels roll. So gaze in awe at my fastest car in the world! Which I cannot show you.

 

[tas8831]

Grief! What a strawman, that I’ve answered again, again, and again!

One last time, very briefly: read Psalms 104 8-9.

NLT:
“6You clothed the earth with floods of water,

water that covered even the mountains.

7At your command, the water fled;

at the sound of your thunder, it hurried away.

8Mountains rose and valleys sank

to the levels you decreed.”


Now, you go figure out what that means.

I’m through with those who don’t want to reason.

And yet...

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

 

[tas8831]

It's important to understand that @Hockeycowboy believes the world's scientific community is, and has been, under the influence of Satan (apparently in order to turn all of us away from Jehovah).

But don't worry....eventually he'll leave this discussion, wait a few days to a week, and later turn up in another thread making all the exact same arguments.

But the question is - will he use plagiarism yet again?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no magic...there is power to control and manipulate matter. Can you say for certain that there is no power in existence that can create matter? Something did.....why not God?

Why not Zeus? Or matter-farting unicorns?

Do you have a better suggestion that is provable?

Your suggesting isn't provable, why are you demanding alternative suggestions to being provable?

ps: I don't have suggestions. I'm fine saying I don't know when I don't know, instead of just making stuff up and pretending them to be valid.

It is only weak to those who can't or won't believe.....

No. The strenght / weakness of a claim is determind by the validity and strength of the evidence that supports it, not by the number of people that (dis)believe it or by the beliefs themselves.

This warped view you express here, seems to be the very core of the problem.
You think claims are validated by believing in them. They aren't. They are validated by evidence (and invalidated by the lack thereof)

you can't make God disappear just by imagining that he isn't there

Neither can you make God appear by just imagining that he is there.

I believe that every human will confront him sooner or later if the Bible is true

And I believe that every human will confront Allah if the quran is true.

Pretty big "if"s though.

.....you don't really know that it isn't....you hope it isn't.

And you "hope" the quran isn't, the bagavad ghita isn't, dianetics isn't,....and so on and so forth.

If we need to pin our "hopes" on everything that we don't know, can't know, don't know for certain... then we're going to end up with endless infinite streams of hopes and beliefs - that even contradict eachother.


It seems a lot wiser instead to move forward based on those things we DO know and understand.