Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Abiogenisis

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Science has yet to confirm/eliminate Creator(s) theory.
Science has yet to confirm/eliminate abiogenesis theory.

Therefore both should still be scientifically explored and not shut up under the brand of "supernatural".

I understand that at first blush, this sounds reasonable. Except for the fact that there is no way to test the supernatural, humans only have natural means at our disposal.

That does NOT, to me, mean that the supernatural does not exist. Indeed, I believe that it is fundamentally impossible to know if the supernatural exists. So, I am 'agnostic' in the true sense of the word as far as the existence of the supernatural.

I am, however, a methodological naturalist, meaning that I believe that our only methods are natural. If the supernatural exists, we are just plain out of luck of deal with it.
 
I understand that at first blush, this sounds reasonable. Except for the fact that there is no way to test the supernatural, humans only have natural means at our disposal.

That does NOT, to me, mean that the supernatural does not exist. Indeed, I believe that it is fundamentally impossible to know if the supernatural exists. So, I am 'agnostic' in the true sense of the word as far as the existence of the supernatural.

I am, however, a methodological naturalist, meaning that I believe that our only methods are natural. If the supernatural exists, we are just plain out of luck of deal with it.

And how do you test abiogenesis?
 
Out of curiosity... what does this have to do with Abiogenesis?

As stated previously, I really don't remember why I brought it up. LK and I have been discussing things for a good while now and I think I just had the passing thought and decided to ask him if he knew about it just for the sake of asking.

He responded that he didnt know what I was talking about so I elaborated. Didnt mean to derail the main topic.
 
And how do you test abiogenesis?

You can test at least parts of it. Such as the Miller-Ulrey experiments prove that amino acids can self-form. I believe that simple self-replicating molecules have been found. What all other parts can be tested, I don't know, I'm not a scientist. But, at least to my understanding, a lot of individual pieces can and have been tested. But, I could be wrong.

Is there necessarily a way to test abigenesis in its entirety? There may not be. Probably isn't a way to test to know exactly what happened on earth as evidence is no longer here.

But, I could be wrong on that. I don't know for certain.
 
off topic in a sense. with the abiogenesis synthetic cell projects

rather then wast money on trying to find the origins of it all, instead work on the uses of that stuff?

as really the synthetic cell cant be used in honesty in providence evidence for something that has to happen naturally (meaning now man made interference)

in others words we must somehow observe the process happen without any lab or interfering with it as much as possible.

because in order to be natural its has to have only the natural laws and enviroment in order for said hypothesis to be tested. and we cant do that as of yet or if ever.
 
rather then wast money on trying to find the origins of it all, instead work on the uses of that stuff?

as really the synthetic cell cant be used in honesty in providence evidence for something that has to happen naturally (meaning now man made interference)

in others words we must somehow observe the process happen without any lab or interfering with it as much as possible.

because in order to be natural its has to have only the natural laws and enviroment in order for said hypothesis to be tested. and we cant do that as of yet or if ever.

Well, that is what I was saying in my post. If the scientists do too much, then they are accused of gaming the system. So there will be no way in principal to meet the demands of the abiogenesis skeptic.

I haven't read the details on the experiment, but, from what little I've read here in this section, I'm okay with conceding it is indeed something "not natural", but, it may well demonstrate that some part of the equation can work.

As far as the usefulness, well, you can't always tell what the practical application of research will be. Sometimes, you just do research just to learn stuff, and assume practical applications will come later.
 
You can test at least parts of it. Such as the Miller-Ulrey experiments prove that amino acids can self-form. I believe that simple self-replicating molecules have been found. What all other parts can be tested, I don't know, I'm not a scientist. But, at least to my understanding, a lot of individual pieces can and have been tested. But, I could be wrong.

Is there necessarily a way to test abigenesis in its entirety? There may not be. Probably isn't a way to test to know exactly what happened on earth as evidence is no longer here.

But, I could be wrong on that. I don't know for certain.

amino acids are a far cry from DNA. Hypothetically, say they proved beyond the shadow of the feintest doubt that abiogenesis is empiracally possible, there is more than one way to skin a cat. (1 possibility does not automatically equate to empirical play out of scenario.)

The Bible can be validated by prophecies too, such as the book of Ezekiel predicting exactly when to the year the nation of Israel would be restored. (fulfilled in 1948)
Other facts like how it was reborn in one day. (A nation being formed in the course of a single day?)
And so on...

There is verifiable science in the Bible such as a round earth which is suspended upon "nothing" (space) and so on.

These do not "prove" the Bible, but it is some convincing evidence in its corner in the ring.

EDITED A WORD OUT, PLEASE DONT USE ANY CURSE WORDS PER TOS.

THANKS STAFF
 
Last edited by a moderator:
we already have uses for that, look at what is used to clean the oil from the ocean.

and i have used that to remove grease and oil from the asphalt where i work and it works great.

and its non-toxic and biodegreable. i wonder what that would do for the sewer plants that have to deep well inject that sludge into the ground. and i also wonder if we could use that bacteria that is designed to eat sludge up and use it for power.
 
amino acids are a far cry from DNA.

Right you are. And, I think some of the other experiments attempt to deduce how DNA evoloved. But, you can't do it all in one experiement. You didn't get from amino acids to DNA overnight, or even in a matter of a human lifetime in the real world. So, if an abiogensis skeptic wants to see amino acids turn into DNA within a few weeks or even years without human intervention, they are asking for the impossible to meet.


The Bible can be validated by prophecies too, such as the book of Ezekiel predicting exactly when to the year the nation of Israel would be restored. (fulfilled in 1948)
Other facts like how it was reborn in one day. (A nation being formed in the course of a single day?)
And so on...

There is verifiable science in the Bible such as a round earth which is suspended upon "nothing" (space) and so on.

These does not "prove" the Bible, but it is some damn convincing evidence in its corner in the ring.

Hmm. I wonder how much I could debate this within the ToS...?

Here's a quickie... the Earth is not round, it is spherical. The Biblical earth is a flat circle with a "firmament" dome where stars are fixed and that can fall to earth, as spoken of in Revelations.
 
Right you are. And, I think some of the other experiments attempt to deduce how DNA evoloved. But, you can't do it all in one experiement. You didn't get from amino acids to DNA overnight, or even in a matter of a human lifetime in the real world. So, if an abiogensis skeptic wants to see amino acids turn into DNA within a few weeks or even years without human intervention, they are asking for the impossible to meet.




Hmm. I wonder how much I could debate this within the ToS...?

Here's a quickie... the Earth is not round, it is spherical. The Biblical earth is a flat circle with a "firmament" dome where stars are fixed and that can fall to earth, as spoken of in Revelations.

If you are worried about violation of ToA, you can always PM me.

Let me ask you this:

Do you think the Hebrew language is perfectly translated when it calls the earth round as opposed to the semantic of spherical? Do you think the Hebrew and Greek cultures, with all of the geometry and building they did were actually so stupid as to think the 3 dimensional world in which they lived was "round" in the modern 2-D connotation of the word? Do you think they believed they lived on a 3D plane within a 2D "circle"? I'm failing to even imagine how such a construct could ever exist in theory, much less in reality.

That word "firmament" has come across me a few times today for some reason. Citing the firmament doesn't work because a dome shaped canvas stretching fourth over a circle is a dome shaped tent. Tents are not "round". That would be like saying a traffic cone is round just because it has a circular base.

Furthermore, science will be the first to back me when I tell you that the Earth is not in fact "spherical" in the perfect sense of the word.


As for the Revelation thing, would you be so kind as to show me exactly which verse(s) you are referring to?

I'll let you have the last word tonight. I have been procrastinating on home work. I'll reply tomorrow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you think the Hebrew and Greek cultures, with all of the geometry and building they did were actually so stupid as to think the 3 dimensional world in which they lived was "round" in the modern 2-D connotation of the word?

You mistake what the brightest of the time knew for what the authors of the Bible knew. You wouldn't necessarily expect someone today writing a religious book today to necessarily be written by people that are up on current science today would you?

There is lots of placing in the Bible where it depicts the Earth as flat. For example, Jesus is taken up the mountain by Satan and can see all the kingdoms of the world. This implies a flat world.

Do you think they believed they lived on a 3D plane within a 2D "circle"? I'm failing to even imagine how such a construct could ever exist in theory, much less in reality.

Take a saucer, and put a semicircle cap on it. Like a serving plate with one of those half-sphere covers on it

Citing the firmament doesn't work because a dome shaped canvas stretching fourth over a circle is a dome shaped tent. Tents are not "round". That would be like saying a traffic cone is round just because it has a circular base.

The earth is a round flat disk, the "firmament" is a half-sphere cap.

Furthermore, science will be the first to back me when I tell you that the Earth is not in fact "spherical" in the perfect sense of the word.

Then its not round, is it? :thumbsup

As for the Revelation thing, would you be so kind as to show me exactly which verse(s) you are referring to?

Revelation 6:13
 
You mistake what the brightest of the time knew for what the authors of the Bible knew. You wouldn't necessarily expect someone today writing a religious book today to necessarily be written by people that are up on current science today would you?

There is lots of placing in the Bible where it depicts the Earth as flat. For example, Jesus is taken up the mountain by Satan and can see all the kingdoms of the world. This implies a flat world.

The writing style of Isaiah, the prophet in who's book the round earth is declared was analyzed by linguistic pedants. They said his Hebrew literary skill was superior to Shakespeare's English writing style. These men were by no means uneducated. In fact, the known Old Testament writers were all men of high status. (Kings such as David and Solomon, "Priest-princes" such as the royal Egyptian upbringing of Moses, priests, such as the prophet Samuel, (secular Historians will tell you that the priest class and the political authority/ruling class were intermingled in the early civilizations from Samaria and Egypt down to the reformation) and other temple scribes who were among the foremost educated people in their society.

In the New testament, you would seem to at least be able to make a case for Peter and James and John (despite no real evidence that they were undereducated in formal secular education), however they were capable of complex exegesis and ideals as expressed in their writing. Oh, and their writings do not cover the claims relevant to this topic.

Christ was a "carpenter" so, geometry would have been a part of his trade, though he left no known firsthand writing. Matthew was a tax collector, which would also appear that he had some handle on organization and mathematics. Luke was a physician. Mark, a historian. Paul was a privileged pharisee brought up at the feet of Gameliel. Paul would have had a very very good education. He was a pharisee and trained from his youth in the academic arts. Your claim is unfounded.

As for the encounter with satan in the desert.... I refer you to the encounter with Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration. What makes you think this isn't a supernatural vision such as the transfiguration? The author knows about horizons and diminished sight. You are looking at this in a very literal way.



Take a saucer, and put a semicircle cap on it. Like a serving plate with one of those half-sphere covers on it

The earth has depth and height. Mountains and valleys. I see how you are interpreting this. I have the image in my head. I just don't agree with how you are looking at it. At the present time I don't know a way to convincingly argue your vision of this with mine. No evidence to discredit either one of our interpretations.




Revelation 6:13

12And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

13And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

14And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.


I do not see anything to suggest a flat earth here, so I am assuming you are talking about the stars falling?

The Greek word used there is asteres. The word can refer to stars, but it actually means any heavenly body. (notice how it screams the etymology of asteroid?) This is further complicated by the mention of a great star/meteor called "wormwood" in the book which falls and destroys a great part of the earth. When when large meteors impact the earth, they tend to break up in the atmosphere and potentially can "rain" asteroids down from the heavens.

Have you ever read the book of Revelation in its entirety? There is an awful lot of symbolism in it. Nobody, and I mean nobody reads this book with an ultra literal perspective. --Nobody. Read it yourself if you have time and have not and youll see why. The book even begins with John explaining he was "in the spirit" when he saw this vision. Several times in the book, John talks about things he is seeing and how an Angel there with him, and at times Christ himself explains the meaning of the symbols of his vision. For instance, the very first chapter has Jesus explaining that the seven candlesticks (menorah) are the seven Churches of Asia (minor/Anatolia). Another example:

Revelation 17

1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

7And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

8The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

9And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

10And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

11And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

12And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

14These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

15And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

16And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

Virtually EVERY chapter of this book is riddled top to bottom in extreme symbolism. Using Revelation to make any argument of the natural order of the world and universe just doesnt work.

Okay, I know what I said earlier and now Im screwed. Off to homework. :tongue
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't even remember why I brought it up. It may have just been a passing question. I reject the language analogy. I have heard it before. That is not to say that I reject this theory based off of the (in my humble opinion) poor analogy, but language and physical biology just do not 'work' in the same manner.
I don't really see why you regard it as a poor analogy. In biology, populations evolve, not individuals. In linguistics, languages evolve amongst populations, not individuals.
So what, homo erecutus found his way to north america (or whichever hominid is the popular choice) and evolved into homo sapien --native american in utter isolation from homo erectus in Sumaria evolving into homo erectus --semite?
This isn't what your linked article says. It says that there was genetic flow between the various Homo erectus populations that prevented evolutionary isolation.
"out of africa" just makes more sense to me personally of the two.
The linked artile argues that this is what the weight of evidence inclines towards.
I don't think it probably that essentially quarantined populations would mutate and 'evolve' to the same eventual end, in so much that even cross breeding is completely functional. Under the evolutionary paradigm, I can "see" how it is possible... Just seems less likely.
As one of the conditions under which speciation can occur is geographical isolation of a breeding population of the ancestral species, evolutionary theory suggests that the pressures expressed through natural selection would tend to preclude isolated populations maintaining interfertility indefinitely. Convergent evolution, however, sees different species and even classes develop uncannily similar appearance (dolphins, sharks and Ichthyosaurs being the classic example).
 
and other temple scribes who were among the foremost educated people in their society.

I grant that the Biblical authors were probably more educated than the average person, as to be literate at the time automatically means you were more educated than the average person. Even so, that doesn't necessarily mean they were very science educated. There is plenty of scientific errors in the Bible.

At any rate Genesis has God placing the stars in the "firmament". It also has the earth existing before the sun and stars.

What makes you think this isn't a supernatural vision such as the transfiguration?

What makes you think it is a supernatural vision? Doesn't say so. It says Jesus was brought to the mountain and can see the kingdoms of the world.

See, if you get to just say its figurative anytime a literal interpretation is inconvenient, then, who is to say what is or isn't literal? Maybe that whole heaven and hell thing is figurative? Maybe that whole salvation thing is figurative?

No evidence to discredit either one of our interpretations.

Sure there is. God placed the stars in the "firmament". Jesus can see the kingdoms of the world from a mountain. If you get the option to say anything inconvenient is figurative or a vision, then of course you will always "win", but I can do the same with any holy book. On any verse in your book.
 
What makes you think it is a supernatural vision? Doesn't say so. It says Jesus was brought to the mountain and can see the kingdoms of the world.

See, if you get to just say its figurative anytime a literal interpretation is inconvenient, then, who is to say what is or isn't literal? Maybe that whole heaven and hell thing is figurative? Maybe that whole salvation thing is figurative?



Sure there is. God placed the stars in the "firmament". Jesus can see the kingdoms of the world from a mountain. If you get the option to say anything inconvenient is figurative or a vision, then of course you will always "win", but I can do the same with any holy book. On any verse in your book.

True. That is the problem. Literal unless it causes cognitive dissonance. If it were "a vision", then Satan didn't need to take Jesus anywhere. Regardless, this shows the "flat earth mentality" of those ancient religious writers. "Placing stars in the firmament", "a tent", "a foundation with a cornerstone", "unmovable", all these [and more references] show how the ancient writer's understanding of the natural world was quite primative.
 
I don't really see why you regard it as a poor analogy. In biology, populations evolve, not individuals. In linguistics, languages evolve amongst populations, not individuals.

Saying that somehow some population at corner A of the globe and some population at corner D of the globe evolved from erectus into homo sapien independently of each other, so that they both evolved into the same exact species is like saying:

Some population in corner A of the globe evolved the French language and that some population at corner D of the world also evolved the exact same French language.


As one of the conditions under which speciation can occur is geographical isolation of a breeding population of the ancestral species, evolutionary theory suggests that the pressures expressed through natural selection would tend to preclude isolated populations maintaining interfertility indefinitely. Convergent evolution, however, sees different species and even classes develop uncannily similar appearance (dolphins, sharks and Ichthyosaurs being the classic example).

Why hasn't any other life form evolved to the likeness of humanity? Why are all animals still stuck in that "animalistic" simplicity for lack of a better term? Why is man of all the animals and primates especially former homnids which conveniently couldnt make it despite lesser life forms doing fine... the only one to breech the natural domain?

Also, Several months ago I had a chat discussion with two atheists. One was the most arrogant conceited person I ever talked to. The other was pleasant and I believe was an anthropology professional.

Anyways, the arrogant one confessed that the one thing which he believes threatens abiogenesis ---evolution theories is that he isn't so sure that the Earth itself is old enough for those processes to have had enough time to arrive where we are today. He was concerned with the time table from abiogenesis to the first complex organsims --well before the dinosaurs. How do you reconcile with this?
 
I grant that the Biblical authors were probably more educated than the average person, as to be literate at the time automatically means you were more educated than the average person. Even so, that doesn't necessarily mean they were very science educated. There is plenty of scientific errors in the Bible.

At any rate Genesis has God placing the stars in the "firmament". It also has the earth existing before the sun and stars.

I addressed this about the firmament sun and stars in the active general discussions topic "4004 BC" Check it out if you wish.



What makes you think it is a supernatural vision? Doesn't say so. It says Jesus was brought to the mountain and can see the kingdoms of the world.

See, if you get to just say its figurative anytime a literal interpretation is inconvenient, then, who is to say what is or isn't literal? Maybe that whole heaven and hell thing is figurative? Maybe that whole salvation thing is figurative?

The context is Jesus fasting in the desert for 40 days and nights. There are no mountains in all of Israel which would even remotely appear to grand in stature. Again, I refer you to the transfiguration. Jesus and a handful of his disciples saw his physical likeness transform (which also reads as his description in Revelation), and they see Moses and Elijah --Prophets who have been dead over a thousand years even at the time of Jesus' ministry. Is this not to be inferred to be a vision, either?
 
Saying that somehow some population at corner A of the globe and some population at corner D of the globe evolved from erectus into homo sapien independently of each other, so that they both evolved into the same exact species is like saying

Who ever said anything like that? It never happens that independent groups evolve into the exact same species.

Why hasn't any other life form evolved to the likeness of humanity? Why are all animals still stuck in that "animalistic" simplicity for lack of a better term? Why is man of all the animals and primates especially former homnids which conveniently couldnt make it despite lesser life forms doing fine... the only one to breech the natural domain?

The short answer is -- because man already exists. Evolution works to fill niches. When species fit the same niche too closely, they compete directly and one wins, the other looses.

Anyways, the arrogant one confessed that the one thing which he believes threatens abiogenesis ---evolution theories is that he isn't so sure that the Earth itself is old enough for those processes to have had enough time to arrive where we are today. He was concerned with the time table from abiogenesis to the first complex organsims --well before the dinosaurs. How do you reconcile with this?

How do I reconcile this? The "arrogant" one was mistaken.
 
I addressed this about the firmament sun and stars in the active general discussions topic "4004 BC" Check it out if you wish.

Well, I searched through that thread, and I found one by you that mentioned the firmament, and a bunch of other wild speculations with no evidential basis other than a desire to try to reconcile observable evidence with Biblical stories. I don't know how else to respond to other than to point out that it was what it was.
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top