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

[tas8831]

What about food for the animals, and waste management, ventilation, &c. and the specialized environmental conditions needed?

Hadn't you heard? A small scale model of the ark floats, therefore, the entire flood story is totally true! The logic is impeccable.

Funny thing - I saw someone once calculate the amount of space a year's worth of hay would take up just to feed the elephant kinds (kinds because mammoths and mastodons and gomphotheres are clearly not the same "kind" as elephants) and it was like 1/3 of the entire volume of the ark.

They don't like to talk about that stuff.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The data taken in ensemble is best explained by a creator.

Claiming it, does not make it so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do the Scriptures indicate it was an entirely natural incident?

No.

Natural forces were used, but Jehovah was behind the event.

The account tells us:

1)He gave Noah the instructions, which include those ideal ratios, for building the Ark....

2)He brought the animals to Noah (Noah didn’t have to go ‘get’ them, as is often asserted)...

3)He closed the Ark’s door....

4)He caused the waters above to fall, and the underground springwaters below to “break open”....

Should we assume that God ceased any further involvement?
That would be a little naïve.

The Genesis account doesn’t have to tell us everything Jehovah God did in keeping Noah, his family, and the animals safe. Does it?

We have enough facts to rely on....those ideal ratios given to Noah — 30:5:3, which provide stability in rough seas — are good evidence, when other ancient related stories offer ridiculous ark proportions, from circular to cubic structures!


There are many other evidences, much of which scientists fail to explain, because of their refusal to even examine the discoveries in light of the Noachian Deluge.

Just a question...


Are you aware that geology as a proper scientific field, was actually kickstarted by christians who set out to find evidence for the Noah flood and failed miserably at that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, so you keep saying.[/qutoe]

So the data keeps saying

If that is true — that evolutionary mechanisms currently understood, explain the complexity we see — then there’d be no push for finding a New Synthesis.

Scientists Seek to Update Evolution | Quanta Magazine

As I say, it’s based on a house of cards.

Pointing to any perceived dificulties or "gaps" in existing theories, will not magically make evidence in support of your god appear.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My goal is to gain an accurate understanding of all history.

Please.

You have already decided what you are going to believe as being "the" history of the world.
All you are trying to do now, is try and paint the bullseye around the arrow.

 

[wellwisher]

Science also uses mythology, when it comes to the formation of life on other planets. For example, it is postulated that life can form in other solvents besides water. This is blindly accepted even though it has never been proven in the lab. We cannot yet make water based life in the lab never mind in other solvents.

With water based life we know how the story ends and know all the materials. With life in other solvents ,we don't know anything ,including what the genetic material would need to be, since DNA only works in water. They assume their God Random is infallible and lucky.

One reason water is uniquely qualified for forming organic/carbon based life can be understood with the system of water and oil. Water and oil do not mix. If we shake water and oil, we can randomize them into an emulsion. But if we let it settle, it will faithfully reproduce two layers. Water and organics form surface tension. While the minimization of the surface tension causes the organics to form order.

If we take a protein that is freshly made, the water will fold the protein to minimize the surface tension. It will bury the hydrophobic moieties first. This folding is exact and is done the same each time, because that final shape minimizes the free energy in the water. Randomization of the protein is eliminated by the water-oil affect.

This property of water and oil/organic was inherent in water and carbon compounds, even before there were carbon/organic compounds. This property is based on chemistry, inherent within water, hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. Creation is sequential, based on having a chemical plan before you even begin biology.

Life using other solvents, has no plan. It assumes an idiot savant God of random who wins lotteries every now and then. That is called mythology and not planned sequential science.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Science also uses mythology, when it comes to the formation of life on other planets. For example, it is postulated that life can form in other solvents besides water. This is blindly accepted even though it has never been proven in the lab. We cannot yet make water based life in the lab never mind in other solvents.

Please present an instance in which a scientist "blindly accepts" that life can form in solvents besides water.

 

[tas8831]

Yeah, so you keep saying.

If that is true — that evolutionary mechanisms currently understood, explain the complexity we see — then there’d be no push for finding a New Synthesis.

Scientists Seek to Update Evolution | Quanta Magazine

As I say, it’s based on a house of cards.

It is so odd that you linked to the article that I linked to earlier to counter your creationist essay on that fake news site. Yet you are linking it to support your position?

Interesting.

Wondering what you thought of the content of that article? Like this stuff:

As a result, Laland and a like-minded group of biologists argue that the Modern Synthesis needs an overhaul. It has to be recast as a new vision of evolution, which they’ve dubbed the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. Other biologists have pushed back hard, saying there is little evidence that such a paradigm shift is warranted....

The researchers don’t argue that the Modern Synthesis is wrong — just that it doesn’t capture the full richness of evolution...

That didn’t sound right to Shuker, and he was determined to challenge Noble [note - Noble is an 'Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" supporter] after the applause died down.

“Could you comment at all on the mechanism underlying that discovery?” Shuker asked.

Noble stammered in reply. “The mechanism in general terms, I can, yes…” he said, and then started talking about networks and regulation and a desperate search for a solution to a crisis. “You’d have to go back to the original paper,” he then said.

While Noble was struggling to respond, Shuker went back to the paper on an iPad. And now he read the abstract in a booming voice.

“‘Our results demonstrate that natural selection can rapidly rewire regulatory networks,’” Shuker said. He put down the iPad. “So it’s a perfect, beautiful example of rapid neo-Darwinian evolution,” he declared.

Shuker distilled the feelings of a lot of skeptics I talked to at the conference. The high-flying rhetoric about a paradigm shift was, for the most part, unwarranted, they said. Nor were these skeptics limited to the peanut gallery. Several of them gave talks of their own.

“I think I’m expected to represent the Jurassic view of evolution,” said Douglas Futuyma when he got up to the podium. Futuyma is a soft-spoken biologist at Stony Brook University in New York and the author of a leading textbook on evolution. In other words, he was the target of many complaints during the meeting that textbooks paid little heed to things like epigenetics and plasticity. In effect, Futuyma had been invited to tell his colleagues why those concepts were ignored.

“We must recognize that the core principles of the Modern Synthesis are strong and well-supported,” Futuyma declared. Not only that, he added, but the kinds of biology being discussed at the Royal Society weren’t actually all that new. The architects of the Modern Synthesis were already talking about them over 50 years ago. And there’s been a lot of research guided by the Modern Synthesis to make sense of them.

Take plasticity. The genetic variations in an animal or a plant govern the range of forms into which organism can develop. Mutations can alter that range. And mathematical models of natural selection show how it can favor some kinds of plasticity over others.

If the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis was so superfluous, then why was it gaining enough attention to warrant a meeting at the Royal Society? Futuyma suggested that its appeal was emotional rather than scientific. It made life an active force rather than the passive vehicle of mutations...

Still, he went out of his way to say that the kind of research described at the meeting could lead to some interesting insights about evolution. But those insights would only arise with some hard work that leads to hard data. “There have been enough essays and position papers,” he said....​

Yup...

House of Cards....

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

To be fair that is from the King James version. The English in it is excessively poetic and hard to understand. A more modern translation makes this clearer. I do believe the common interpretation was that the water rose to the tops of the highest hills and mountains and then rose another fifteen cubits. Though that lends to misinterpretation was well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hadn't you heard? A small scale model of the ark floats, therefore, the entire flood story is totally true! The logic is impeccable.

Funny thing - I saw someone once calculate the amount of space a year's worth of hay would take up just to feed the elephant kinds (kinds because mammoths and mastodons and gomphotheres are clearly not the same "kind" as elephants) and it was like 1/3 of the entire volume of the ark.

They don't like to talk about that stuff.

And let's not forget that the Ark had one small window to get rid of the poop and to provide ventilation. And only eight people to remove all of it. One can tell that flood believers never raised a calf as part of a 4H project. Or even visited a modern dairy farm.

 

[tas8831]

To be fair that is from the King James version. The English in it is excessively poetic and hard to understand. A more modern translation makes this clearer. I do believe the common interpretation was that the water rose to the tops of the highest hills and mountains and then rose another fifteen cubits. Though that lends to misinterpretation was well.

Last I knew, the KJV was the bee's knees. Not so much any more?

 

[tas8831]

And let's not forget that the Ark had one small window to get rid of the poop and to provide ventilation. And only eight people to remove all of it. One can tell that flood believers never raised a calf as part of a 4H project. Or even visited a modern dairy farm.

They would have needed a conveyor-belt/dumb waiter style poop removal system, working around the clock.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Last I knew, the KJV was the bee's knees. Not so much any more?

It depends. If one's sect of Christianity is "King James only" then that is almost certainly a cult, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses where it is the "Authorized Version". I think that some of the more cultic versions of Christianity love the KJV because it is easier to abuse. Since the language is dated and has to be translated somewhat one can often translate it to support one's cult's own narrative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They would have needed a conveyor-belt/dumb waiter style poop removal system, working around the clock.

LOL, dairy farms have those poop conveyor belts. Of course it has been over forty years since I have been in one. It changed over the years from a rather small trough with powered belt in it to this:

The ones that I remember arose from this simple trough that had a mechanized transport added:

 

[SkepticThinker]

Gotta love it.....when Deeje comes across science material for laypeople she waves it away as too simplistic and childish, and when she comes across science material for professionals she waves it away too technical and laden with "technobabble" (and accuses the scientists of using jargon to deliberately confuse the public).

Gee, it's almost like she just looks for any excuse she can think of to make inconvenient information go away. Now why would Deeje do that?

I was just about to post the exact same thing. You beat me to it!

 

[Jose Fly]

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

I know where I'd put my money.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you aware that geology as a proper scientific field, was actually kickstarted by christians who set out to find evidence for the Noah flood and failed miserably at that?

Actually he is aware of that. Back in his first flood thread in the General forum, I provided him a link to some of the writings from those Christian geologists, where they describe how they reached their conclusions and in some cases, how painful it was for them to admit that the flood didn't happen. @Hockeycowboy told me he'd read it, but of course I've never heard back from him about it.

As you likely know, that sort of thing is a pretty common creationist tactic (saying "That's interesting...I'll look it over", and then just ignoring it and never speaking of it again).

 

[Jose Fly]

And let's not forget that the Ark had one small window to get rid of the poop and to provide ventilation. And only eight people to remove all of it. One can tell that flood believers never raised a calf as part of a 4H project. Or even visited a modern dairy farm.

I remember someone doing an estimate on that and showing how with only 8 people to feed and clean up after that many animals, they'd have to move at the speed of light. But of course, with a little bit of Jehovah magic, you can do anything!

 

[Jose Fly]

I was just about to post the exact same thing. You beat me to it!

Well you know, great minds and all......

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Actually he is aware of that. Back in his first flood thread in the General forum, I provided him a link to some of the writings from those Christian geologists, where they describe how they reached their conclusions and in some cases, how painful it was for them to admit that the flood didn't happen. @Hockeycowboy told me he'd read it, but of course I've never heard back from him about it.

As you likely know, that sort of thing is a pretty common creationist tactic (saying "That's interesting...I'll look it over", and then just ignoring it and never speaking of it again).

I did 'speak of it again'!

If it's the paper I'm thinking of....it was from the view of YEC's, which of course is faulty!


I profess no such view. I don't get why the Noachian Flood is always linked to, and based on, Young Earth Creationism. ..I guess to give skeptics genuine grounds to dismiss it.

But the Earth was actually millions if not billions of years old when the Flood occurred.

You debaters constantly misrepresent my views! Can you honestly not remember?