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

[Deeje]

Excuse me, but there is no one single author to the bible, Deeje. Never have been.

And for another, the authors of each single books, were all written by multiple "humans".

Aren't anyone in the bible "humans"?

Are you going to lie again?

I have no problems with people having beliefs in their stories from the bible or any other holy scriptures. My problem with followers who are willing to lie.

This is why I think JW is such a f#####-up cult, using dishonest tactics, like propaganda and misinterpretation of the scriptures which they hold sacred, to prop up their weak faith.

Apparently, JW doctrine ignored the commandment "to not bear false witness". Lying is ok among the JW followers.

Charming...you are on ignore. You can't not make the response into a personal attack.
Its the best form of defense when you have none.

Good bye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right! You keep believing that....

‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes | Science | Smithsonian

“Refuted a thousand times”, huh?
Lol.

LOL indeed. Floated does not mean seaworthy. No wonder you are so confused.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Charming...you are on ignore. You can't not make the response into a personal attack.
Its the best form of defense when you have none.

Good bye.

And @Deeje, who is guilty of endless personal attacks puts another person that refuted her mythical beliefs on ignore. How long before she is in a self induced echo chamber?

 

[whirlingmerc]

But genesis doesn't explain anything, it just posits an agent and a couple of different timelines.
Science studies mechanism, and tests it's hypotheses. Agency is outside its purview.
Rescue? Hardly. Panspermia just moves the goalpost.
Nothing rests on the Urey-Miller experiment, just as nothing rests on Darwin. They're just early pioneers, historical curiosities.
Modern medicine has advanced way beyond Hippocrates or Galen, Physics has long eclipsed Archimedes. Why do evolution deniers keep bringing up Urey-miller and Darwin?
What does this have to do with entropy, and why can't information arise spontaneously? For that matter, where did this creator and his information come from? Were they spontaneous?
Again, creation doesn't explain anything, there's no mechanism proposed. The ToE, on the other hand, is all about mechanism. If anything's going to explain how life arose; how RNA arose with its information storage, it's most likely to be the ToE. There are no other contenders.
Science begins with curiosity, and apparent connections or coincidences are the stuff hypotheses are made from. But it's science's method that makes it so successful: the testing, peer reviews, predictability, &c.
Which is why science tests its hypothesis, and continues to look for supporting evidence.
Creation's conclusions, on the other hand, really are just speculation. Religion doesn't test it's hypotheses, it discourages criticism or review. Religion was around for thousands of years, but it was only when we began applying the scientific method that our understanding really took off.

where did this creator and his information come from? Were they spontaneous?

God is uncreated and in a different category

The world was made for man to discover to the glory of a really big God

I like the John Piper Quote
"One wise man said, the universe is like a peanut that God carries around in his pocket.
God created us to know him and love him and show him. And then he gave us a hint of what he is like: the universe."

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is uncreated and in a different category

The world was made for man to discover to the glory of a really big God

I like the John Piper Quote
"One wise man said, the universe is like a peanut that God carries around in his pocket.
God created us to know him and love him and show him. And then he gave us a hint of what he is like: the universe."

Sorry, that is a special pleading fallacy. The same claim could just as well be made about the universe. If the universe "needs" a creator then that creator is even more in need of a creator.

 

[Valjean]

God is uncreated and in a different category

The world was made for man to discover to the glory of a really big God

So you declare, in concordance with your chosen religious mythology, but with no other supporting evidence.

I could declare that there are six gods, and that Earth was created as a cod farm for their heavenly sushi restaurant. I'd have just as much empirical evidence for my claim as you have for yours.

 

[Jose Fly]

Creationist tend to have very little knowledge of either biology or science in general.

Well keep in mind, with Jehovah's Witnesses they're pretty much not allowed to.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

LOL indeed. Floated does not mean seaworthy. No wonder you are so confused.

I noticed the wording (a stick floats), it doesn't surprise me that mainstream science wants to keep such a topic out of the news, and belittle any studies that support a Biblical event.

I am surprised the University even allowed the experiment. They were probably hoping for it to fail.

That's what this world's structure is all about, getting society away from any connection with Jehovah. -- James 4:4

The Bible prophesied this very attitude would dominate, in line with it's "god". (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Enjoy "running with the crowd", while it lasts.
Revelation 11:18..

I don't mind being in the minority.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I noticed the wording (a stick floats), it doesn't surprise me that mainstream science wants to keep such a topic out of the news, and belittle any studies that support a Biblical event.

I am surprised the University even allowed the experiment. They were probably hoping for it to fail.

That's what this world's structure is all about, getting society away from any connection with Jehovah. -- James 4:4

The Bible prophesied this very attitude would dominate, in line with it's "god". (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Enjoy "running with the crowd", while it lasts.
Revelation 11:18..

I don't mind being in the minority.

Universities do not have your biases. They also knew that the experiment proved nothing. Any ship builder could explain to you why the Ark was not seaworthy. That you cannot find any reputable ship builder that makes the claim that the Ark was seaworthy should tell you what the answer is. You could only find a fake study commissioned by AiG.

First off you do not even seem to know what "detailed plans" would be. Supposed, but never proven "ideal dimensions" is not an example of "detailed plans". Detailed plans would include all sorts of instructions on materials, bracing, ventilation, waste disposal. The list goes on and on and on. And of course a book that is spouting nonsense would be likely to include a line that people would come to doubt it. What does that prove? Only that the writers may not have been the believers that you think that they are.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That you cannot find any reputable ship builder that makes the claim that the Ark was seaworthy should tell you what the answer is.

There've been many ships based on the Ark’s ratios. I posted several throughout other threads.

Facts are facts. It matters not one iota how we feel about them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There've been many ships based on the Ark’s ratios. I posted several throughout other threads.

Facts are facts. It matters not one iota how we feel about them.

No, there have not. This is a claim that you cannot support. There have been ships with those ratios, but you would have to prove that they were based upon your myth.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There have been ships with those ratios....

Why? Because they allow for seaworthiness!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? Because they allow for seaworthiness!

Nope.

try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Hockeycowboy , you really need to learn what seaworthyness entails.

 

[whirlingmerc]

So you declare, in concordance with your chosen religious mythology, but with no other supporting evidence.

I could declare that there are six gods, and that Earth was created as a cod farm for their heavenly sushi restaurant. I'd have just as much empirical evidence for my claim as you have for yours.

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

 

[Hockeycowboy]

.

Not that I expect any to watch it all the way through, but if they do they might better understand the scientific underpinnings of pre-evolution origins . A subject they're fond of bringing up in discussions and debates.

.​

“Scientific underpinnings”. Right! At least you didn’t dub these assumptions as proof. It’s not even evidence.

 

[Skwim]

There've been many ships based on the Ark’s ratios. I posted several throughout other threads.

It's not surprising that some ships happen to have had the same ratio, after all, thousands of ships have been designed with varying ratios, and it would be surprising if none had the same ratio as that of the ark. After all, it's well within stability parameters, which are quite wide. Your assertion is not unlike the claim that god specially designed the tomatoes in your garden because they have the same diameter (27/8 - 3 in) as a Major League baseball.

.

 

[Valjean]

There've been many ships based on the Ark’s ratios. I posted several throughout other threads.

Facts are facts. It matters not one iota how we feel about them.

Links?
There is no evidence of a world flood -- and such a flood would have left a great deal of evidence. There are many geologic, physical and archaeological reasons to doubt the flood.
A ship as described in the Bible would not have been feasible. Gathering, housing and caring for the animals on the ark would not have been feasible -- in so many ways.
Their subsequent dispersal would not have been feasible.
Without an appeal to magic the whole story doesn't hold water.

 

[Valjean]

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

No. It's best explained by the natural, observable, testable laws and mechanisms.
A creator is a special pleading, and "explains" nothing. Agency isn't explanation.
Why propose a magical agent when familiar, everyday mechanisms are sufficient?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

For those interested in who was the lead researcher of the 1993 Noah’s Ark feasibility and safety study, he is Dr. Seok Won Hong (Not Seon, as is commonly asserted)...his resumé is in the following link:

https://www.isope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CV-HONG-SW-2018.pdf

Anyone can see that he is a respected and serious researcher, with valid credentials.