Pharyngula

Posted by: elnhuk | December 29, 2011 6:06 PM

I like your method. When a coworker whom I thought was educated and rational looked at me with a straight face and said "I believe that the earth is 6000 years old" I was stunned. I finally came up with "Have you ever been to the grand canyon?"
It seemed like his creator was a speed freak to have made all of those strata. Why didn't he just make a big ditch? I guess it doesn't pay to underestimate the stupidity of the pius.

Posted by: edmc2 | December 29, 2011 7:13 PM

As a believer of Biblical Creation - I don't subscribe to an earth being 6000-10000 years old. It's more like around 4BYO as indicated by radiometric dating. And it is no way in contradiction with the Bible's statement at Genesis 1:1 -

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth -- NKJV."

This can easily mean millions and millions or even billions of years.

And this is where I think many creationists make and made mistakes of assuming the earth having such young ages.

But now you know that not all proponents of Creation believe such unfounded / unscientific belief.

Posted by: def | December 29, 2011 8:13 PM

Very original approach, but when backed into a corner, Creationists will just respond with "Well, god created it aged." This will, however, let you spin it back to Darwin with the counter that god apparently also created all life on Earth with the precise and exact appearance of having been evolved according to processes first outlined by Darwin.

Posted by: Tim Riches | December 29, 2011 9:28 PM

For anyone interested, here's the URL for the Lunar far-side photo:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070225.html

Posted by: tylerfh2012 | December 30, 2011 1:10 AM

I would like to apologize on behalf of all religious people for their stubborn blindness concerning this issue. They are stuck on a tradition, an incorrect interpretation of a few unfortunately translated Scripture passages, much like the Roman Catholic Church in the time of Galileo.
That being said, I believe that scientists should take care to avoid being guilty of the same offense. Stephen Hawking's presentation on the formation of the universe is brilliantly done, and in simple terms that I can understand, but when he tries to explain how the Big Bang could have just happened on its own, I begin to feel that he is grasping at straws. His explanation has the same flavor as those of the "God just created everything already old" crowd.
I wish there weren't a God. I would rather do whatever I please and not have to worry about the complications that a God brings into the picture. But I have not yet found a convincing explanation for the origin of the universe that does not include one.
Anyway, that is my humble opinion. I apologize that it was long-winded. I hope that the ignorance of many religious people does not make you think that all of us are so close-minded, or that it causes you to ignore the aspects of religion that are intelligent and beneficial.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | December 30, 2011 2:34 AM

It's more like around 4BYO as indicated by radiometric dating. And it is no way in contradiction with the Bible's statement at Genesis 1:1 -

It's quite true that the bible doesn't say anything at all about a 6000yo earth. That value is derived from Ken Hamm's favorite bugaboo, *gasp* human reason (specifically, Archbishop Usher's human reason)

Genesis is contradicted in plenty of other ways:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Earth was NOT created "in the beginning", earth was created more than 2/3rds of the time AFTER the beginning.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

At no point during the process of the creation of the earth was the earth ever "formless" or "empty". And the earliest young earth had no waters.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

There was already light in the universe before there was the earth.

God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day

How do you have evening or morning or a day before there is a sun?

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.”

Even if you take this as a metaphor for the process of evaporation producing an atmosphere, this doesn't work. The sky doesn't work this way.

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”

In reality dry land came first, and water/oceans after.

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”

Of all the major groups of organisms, the seed-bearing plants were the LAST to appear, even after the animals, not the first. And life first appeared in the water, not on the land.

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

The sun only made AFTER the sunlight dependent plants? Stars made only now, AFTER the earth? And the moon is not a light, just a reflector.

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

The water was teeming with living creatures before there were plants on land. A birds did not appear before land animals did.

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”

The land did not produce any living creature. Land creatures came from sea creatures. Even as metaphor this does not work, as it evokes spontaneous generation.

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them

And this directly contradicts Genesis 2.

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

Humans can most decidedly NOT eat every seed-bearing plant or every tree that has fruit with seed in it. The vast majority of these are either unpalatable or poisonous to us.

Pretty much every single sentence in Genesis 1 is bunkum, even as metaphor.

Posted by: PharmSkep | December 30, 2011 3:22 AM

@amphiox

does it matter in the argument of the existence of a god? I mean even if I concede that atheism creates a net more immoral society (which I am not doing because myself I do not know the data), it still leaves the theist a very difficult time dispelling our unbelief.....which is based on a vacuous argument for the existence of a deity....especially a personal deity....

And man it ceases to amaze me that the argument of ignorance about stuff like the big bang or formation of DNA is always in these debates....they will frequently point out that attempts to theorize about the big bang and such more not well understood issues in science...they will call that "scientists having faith"...that is absurd and so tiresome really.

So have faith fine and dandy....but trying to use our higher more consistently applied standards for evidence to convince us that our unbelief is by those same standards of logic and evidence misguided is.....that will be a challenge.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | December 30, 2011 5:13 AM

I'd like to see a creationist argue that God created the light in transit from stars that are more than 10,000 light-years away and that the light that appears to be coming from such distant objects was never really generated by those objects.

Of course, if they can come up with crackpot explanations like the fossils were created in the ground then it shouldn't be any problem saying God created starlight in transit.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 30, 2011 7:15 AM

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

No, that's not a sentence in the Hebrew original. The whole thing is more like:

In the beginning of Gods' creation of the heavens and the earth, when the earth was chaotic and empty and Gods' breath/spirit hovered above the waters, Gods said: "Let there be light", and there was light.

I wish there weren't a God. I would rather do whatever I please

*blink*

What?

Actions still have consequences, god or no god, devil or no devil. I still have innate empathy, god or no god, devil or no devil.

And besides, your argument isn't for the existence of any god, it's for having faith, regardless of whether that faith accurately depicts reality or not – regardless of whether anything supernatural actually exists.

But I have not yet found a convincing explanation for the origin of the universe that does not include one.

The more energy must be borrowed to create a quantum fluctuation, the more quickly that energy must be paid back. Photons appear and disappear all the time. Proton-electron pairs are much rarer. W bosons, Z bosons, b (anti)quarks and t (anti)quarks are insanely short-lived.

If you add the mass, kinetic energy, etc. etc. of the entire universe on the one side, and the potential energy of the entire universe on the other side, you arrive at two more or less equal numbers. Neither number is known with sufficient precision, but there's enough overlap between the error margins that the two numbers may well be equal.

If they're equal, the total energy of the universe is zero.

If that's the case, the universe may well be a quantum fluctuation that is eternal – there is no energy to pay back.

Now, look up eternal inflation.

I'd like to see a creationist argue that God created the light in transit from stars that are more than 10,000 light-years away and that the light that appears to be coming from such distant objects was never really generated by those objects.

...um. Dr. Evil? That already exists, too.

Seriously. Several creationist organizations have been claiming exactly what you say for years on their websites. Google finds 37,100 results for "created in transit", and the first is the Wikipedia article "Creationist cosmologies". The tenth result is the list of "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" by creation.com, and the snippet preview says: "'Light was created in transit.' Some older creationist works, as a solution to the distant starlight problem, proposed that God may have created the light in transit."

Poe's Law: It is impossible to create a parody of creationism that can be reliably distinguished from the real thing without knowing the intent of the author.

generalized to Morgan's Law: Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from a genuine kook.

further generalized to Jonell's Law: It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an exercise for your kill-file.

even further to stogoe's Law: I maintain that no statement could possibly exist that is obviously stupid enough such that no one could be convinced of its veracity. There's always a bigger idiot.

finally, back to parodies with the Corrollary to stogoe's Law: There exist no creationist parody statements on the internet sufficiently absurd to prevent some number of creationists from:

1) finding the argument convincing

and

2) copying the statement into their Plagiarized Arguments Folder for later use.

Oh, and if Hawking had to "grasp at straws" to explain a Godless Big Bang, then how do you explain one with a God?

Because then, you see, you have to explain the god in addition to explaining the Big Bang.

God: the most complex, least probable straw ever.

Posted by: James_Evans | December 30, 2011 11:27 AM

...but when he tries to explain how the Big Bang could have just happened on its own, I begin to feel that he is grasping at straws.

Hawking is grasping at straws, tylerfh2012, mathematical straws. Why does that distinction matter? Because Dirac was grasping at mathematical straws when his equation predicted anti-matter, the existence of which has since been proven by experiment. Einstein's general relativity was a mathematical reach as well, until empirical proof solidified the theory. Black holes were a mathematical straw, until X-ray telescopes and such provided compelling evidence that they do in fact exist. And so on.

His explanation has the same flavor as those of the "God just created everything already old" crowd.

Ummm, no. The vague language of the Bible makes no specific claims that can be tested in any meaningful manner, and therefore no reliable, helpful predictions, science, or technologies will ever come from it, or any other religious scripture for that matter. Theoretical mathematics has a track record of usefulness. That is the difference you are failing to mentally digest, and the reason why we are in fact dealing with two very different flavors here.

Posted by: edmc2 | December 30, 2011 2:46 PM

"So the age of the earth does not contradict Genesis?"

Nope.

The reason why you and others see inconsistencies in the Genesis creation account is the total mixed up of time frames or creative stages.

You see, Genesis 1:1 mainly states that:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth -- NKJV."

And like I said - this allows the earth to be around 4byo, it also allows the "heavens" the universe - to be in the trillion of years old.

But the next verse - v2 describes how the "formless" face of the earth was about to change.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

From here on the Genesis writer describes God's "creative acts" when he prepared or transformed the earth to be inhabited.

As for the

"creation of whole kingdoms, classes and orders of organisms and the somewhat strange sequence of events this occurs by?"

Many get confused and gets mixed up on this one because of the context and usage of the Hebrew words "create" and "made". But once you know the difference between these two words then the "inconsistencies" will clear up.

BTW - the creative "day" in Genesis is not a literal 24 hour day as some suggest or even a thousand years but an "epoch" a time event as in the "day" of the dinosaurs .

- also if you think I'm like the creationists that you normally had conversations with, you might be surprised - I'm not.

Posted by: edmc2 | December 30, 2011 5:01 PM

@Kroogie

just logically unnecessary and in gross violation of Occam's Razor, you are essentially arguing that the moon landing was faked by aliens from Zeta Reticuli.,

Well even simple things especially when it deals with nature are not really that simple. They appear to be simple (on the surface) but upon closer look and study - they are not that simple. It's not shifting the burden of proof because it easy to say "God did it" to a complex argument, no but it fits the known facts.

As for the rest of what you said above - balderdash - nonsense.

My wallpaper on all of my computer as well as my iPhone show Neil Armstrong walking on the moon and the DNA molecule let alone the earth shows intelligence in design*.

Of course to evolutionists or evolution proponents if you prefer - they look at the evidence in the POV of evolution theory and try to (knowingly or unknowingly) mold the evidence to fit the facts.

As for:

"invisible unmeasurable God that somehow manages to cover up all evidence of his existence"

To the contrary, as a (Biblical) Creation proponent,I have this to say - with regards to the "invisible unmeasurable God":

Romans 1:20-21 states that-

"For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened."

* note: i didn't say Intelligent Design (ID) because officially they believe in Intelligent Design apart from an Intelligent Designer. I (and people like me) on the other hand - wholeheartedly know and believe that the one behind the Intelligence in Design is God - known by the name YHWH (Jehovah/Yahweh).

As for:

"we already have working understandings of most natural processes without him,"

And yet Evolution Scientists are still groping for the mot fundamental aspects of life - The Origin of Life. Where did life came from?

The answer - "Chance or Chance Events" as Mr. Myers succinctly put it.

Do you really believe that CHANCE EVENTS was responsible for the existence of Life?

If so, how is this scientifically possible even probable?

Chance event the creator of the earth and the Universe.

Can you explain?

Posted by: Kroogie | December 30, 2011 5:48 PM

Yes but can you disprove my claim that the photo is a forgery? You cannot, at least not to the ridiculous levels of exhaustive exclusion that theists cling to to protect their God? Of course it's not fake, just like of course there is no God, but that is my entire point.

Oh and complexity requires a creator why exactly? A complex human forms out of a unicellular zygote, by purely natural and by now well understood processes. We can actually physically observe this, and yet it remains somehow inconceivable to you that complex life can arise from a relatively simple origin.

Oh and chance had something to do with abiogenesis yes, but you are either misunderstanding or obfuscating the probabilaties here. A priori, there was nothing mandating that life must arise on Earth and at the time that it did. There are hundreds of billions of planets in the known universe and we happen to be on this one, especially as it is conducive to our particular form of life.

Were whatever events that lead to abiogenesis on this particular planet unlikely? Sure, but writing them off as impossible without God is like flipping 100 coins, recording what each coin landed at in succession and then declaring that what you just did is impossible because the chances of getting that exact string are 1 in 2^100.

Oh and if complexity requires a creator then who created your complex God? If nothing did then that's special pleading and we can write him out and just say that nothing created the universe. Which is actually true.

Posted by: David07 | December 30, 2011 8:28 PM

For those who search for evidence of God, they will see all the universe and never find it. For those who have God in their hearts, they will see all the universe and never see anything OTHER than God. If the inner experience of God is never allowed, the outer evidence is impossible. But if the inner experience of God is ever allowed, outer evidence will be unnecessary. In 1844, Baha'u'llah said "all the atoms of the universe proclaim the Oneness of God." And in the last few decades, science has found that indeed all matter is made of one resonant energy, iota of the one source. I was raised in religion, then one night saw the spiral arm of our galaxy, the milky way, bright and clear across the sky. I walked away from religion totally for many years after that, becoming an atheist, certain in the belief that there is nothing in the universe other than matter and energy. But I never allowed my heart to close, and became agnostic in my later twenties. I was then brought through a period of extreme difficulties, and one night I collapsed in my living room, crying so hard I felt I was vomiting. I'd been to that place many times, and it always took me at least a few hours if not days to bring myself back up again. As I lay there, knowing I would not live past that night, a small still voice resonated through my whole being, saying "something good is coming your way." And in an instant, absolutely all my despair, my sadness, my lack of hope, simply vanished. I blinked, stood up, and was completely dumbfounded. I began to slowly find my way out of the horrible place I had fallen into. This didn't come from me. I had no more hope in all of life at the point it came to me. Some will say there is nothing other than atoms and energy. I know in all my being there is something more. Not religion, not dogma, not the agenda-driven thoughts of people about God, but what resides in your heart, the only pure device for communication with the divine there has ever been. But more than that, You are God, as every being that ever gained consciousness is a higher expression of Godself. When you look each night to the stars, remember: without you, witnessing it, it is all for nothing. All creation is part of you: that beautiful, priceless, eternal spark that is Godself, looking back upon Godself, seeing and experiencing His glory. You are loved and cherished beyond all measure, for all creation stands witness unto that love, and was made for you, that your uniqueness, your consciousness, your singular spirit could know all things.

Posted by: edmc2 | December 30, 2011 10:33 PM

“Many get confused and gets mixed up on this one because of the context and usage of the Hebrew words "create" and "made". But once you know the difference between these two words then the "inconsistencies" will clear up.”

How, exactly?

Well, a perfect example is your fellow evolutionists post's #12 – Amphiox.
The statements are all over the place – this is what usually happens when one is not considering the context and meaning of the Hebrew words “created – ba'ra” and “made” – a'sah”
In short ba'ra (created) – simply means the 'act of creation' – as “In [the] beginning God created (ba’ra) the heavens and the earth”. The Hebrew bara’′ and the Greek kti′zo, both meaning “create,” are used exclusively with reference to divine creation.

created -- h1254 --- ברא bara'
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&t=ASV#conc/1

While 'Asah' (made) - simply means made to “appear”, “come to be” – so that the “two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night” will serve “as signs and for seasons and for days and years.”

made --- h6213 ----עשה `asah
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6213&t=ASV

I can explain further if you need more explanation.

As for:
To the contrary, as a (Biblical) Creation proponent,I have this to say - with regards to the "invisible unmeasurable God": [Romans 1:20-21]

Just because the verse says something does not make it true, or even meaningful. Why should we believe the verse, when God does not offer evidence of his own existence? .

If you can prove that it's not then you have a point there – but so far I haven't seen any scripture that's untrue. To the contrary they are all accurate. Even the ones you say are “miracles”.

In fact Dr. Kaku said that miracles are things that are beyond our current scientific knowledge – yet given enough time we might be able to explain many of them.

In fact there are things that were considered miraculous even two centuries ago – but today they are normal parts of our lives.

But as to the scripture that I cited - Romans 1:20-21 – what's so untrue about it?
A simple verification and honest evaluation show that nature – God's creations – is full of evidence of his existence.

Just ask yourself this almost childish question – why is there taste? It's a fact that many animals and as well as humans don't have the ability to taste food – yet they are well and alive. Of course to humans – it's a boring existence because there are so many delicious food. So why the taste?

One of your fellow evolutionists told me once that evolution did it so that we will know if a food is poisonous or not. Very unsatisfactory answer – what's yours though?

Then we have color and the sense of touch. The DNA alone is a sign of a great handiwork – that man can never duplicate. It's said that it'll take volumes of books just to cover a small portion of it. But there's billions more to consider including the highly fine-tuned universe.

So as the scripture say:

“For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made,”

As for:

“And yet Evolution Scientists are still groping for the mot fundamental aspects of life - The Origin of Life. Where did life came from?”

If there were a carefully documented example of life arising as a chemical reaction, would you be convinced that God was not necessary for life to originate?

Now that would be an amazing feat – confirming the miraculous resurrection” of the the dead that Jesus performed.
Of course that would be a game changer so to speak – and will most diffidently violate the universal rule that life can only come from an (always) existing life.
Note: since God is ETERNAL Always Existing– having life within him – thus he can impart life to others as the scripture say.

As for:
" The answer - "Chance or Chance Events" as Mr. Myers succinctly put it."

Where, exactly did he put it this way? The only one even using the word "chance" in this thread is you (and now me, quoting you).

I'm quite surprised you're not aware of this fact.

Well anyway here's one or two:

It's a very truthy list of calculations. Sure, you can multiply out the probabilities of all the many events that led directly to you after the fact, but this wasn't a process that began with the goal of making you. You are a contingent product of many chance events, but so what? So is everything else in the universe. That number doesn't make you any more special than a grain of sand on a beach, which also arrived at its precise shape, composition, and location by a series of chance events. ...

In fact Mr. Myers (correct me if I'm wrong) wants you not to run away from such words.

#8 - I use "chance" intentionally. A lot of evolution is simple chance accumulation of random scraps of garbage and errors! We shouldn't run away from the word, but should embrace it.

So as not to be accused of quote mining here are the links.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/a_very_silly_calculation.php
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/4431-39-design-vs-chance-39-by-pz-myers-aai-2009/comments?page=1

So my question to you again – do you agree with Mr. Myers? If not why not?

Ok – went to long here.

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 30, 2011 11:53 PM

While 'Asah' (made) - simply means made to "appear", "come to be"

So what? You're not explaining how this resolves the contradiction.

I can explain further if you need more explanation.

I think you'd better.

If you can prove that it's not then you have a point there

It contains a logical contradiction; it asserts that God is both invisible and clearly seen. So it's necessarily false.

but so far I haven't seen any scripture that's untrue. To the contrary they are all accurate.

How many days with morning and evening last for billions of years?

How many four-legged insects have you seen?

In fact Dr. Kaku said that miracles are things that are beyond our current scientific knowledge - yet given enough time we might be able to explain many of them.

You might want to think about the implications of that. Do you think of God as something that can be explained by science?

A simple verification and honest evaluation show that nature - God's creations - is full of evidence of his existence.

How? What in nature is evidence of an invisible person with magical superpowers? You can't just make the claim that it exists, which is all that you're doing.

Just ask yourself this almost childish question - why is there taste?

What do you mean by "why"?

It's a fact that many animals and as well as humans don't have the ability to taste food - yet they are well and alive

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, let alone if it's true.

Of course to humans - it's a boring existence because there are so many delicious food.

This is ungrammatical and incoherent. I have no idea what it's supposed to mean, let alone support.

One of your fellow evolutionists told me once that evolution did it so that we will know if a food is poisonous or not. Very unsatisfactory answer - what's yours though?

It's unsatisfactory because it's incomplete. It's not just to detect poisonous/nonpoisonous; taste distinguishes between many different types of compounds that can be associated with different effects on the body. And of course, it doesn't go into the mechanisms of taste detection, which involve both the tongue and the nose.

Then we have color and the sense of touch. The DNA alone is a sign of a great handiwork - that man can never duplicate.

Why not?

Now that would be an amazing feat - confirming the miraculous resurrection" of the the dead that Jesus performed.

What the hell does abiogenesis have to do with Jesus?

Of course that would be a game changer so to speak - and will most diffidently violate the universal rule that life can only come from an (always) existing life.

It can't be a universal rule, so it must have been violated at some point. In your mythology, God is the violation of the rule. In reality, abiogenesis violates the rule.

Note: since God is ETERNAL Always Existing- having life within him - thus he can impart life to others as the scripture say.

So? Even in your logically fallacious special-pleading argument by fiat, God still violates the "rule".

So my question to you again - do you agree with Mr. Myers? If not why not?

I agree, more or less, with what he wrote -- which is not what you wrote.

Note that he specified "contingent", in what he wrote. This is a significant qualification; it is not honest of you to leave it out. In future, if you want to avoid putting words in someone's mouth, just quote directly and completely.

Posted by: edmc2 | December 31, 2011 1:04 AM

So what? You're not explaining how this resolves the contradiction.

OK - recap - to better understand the creation account one must put oneself on earth as an observer. That's how Moses wrote Genesis.

Genesis 1:1 basically means that the heavens as well as heavenly bodies including the earth were already created (ba'ra) for countless of billions of years. Then (gen 1:2)- the formless earth was to be made habitable.

Next is a quick summary of the sequence of creative events.

Day No.--- Creative Works ----- Texts

1 -- Light appeared (owr); division between day and night --- Gen 1:3-5.

--> Means that light is coming from somewhere became visible. Thus a division between day and night can now be establish. And yes this will take thousands of "nights" and "days" of the first creative "day".

2 -- Expanse, a division between waters
beneath the expanse and waters above it --- Gen 1:6-8

--> A water canopy was made to appear at this stage also the sky (from which birds fly into). By what mechanism was the "expanse" - water canopy was made to appear - the Scripture is silent.

3 -- Dry land; vegetation --- Gen 1:9-13

--> As waters came together as sea basins - dry land appeared. Of course tectonic plates was part of the movement of land and mountains.

4 -- Heavenly luminaries (ma'owr) become discernible from earth ----- Gen 1:14-19 (a'sah)

--> At this stage the sun and the moon can now be clearly discerned - no doubt due to the thinning of the atmosphere and the water canopy. Less c02 due to photosynthesis from the sun.

5 -- Aquatic souls and flying creatures ---- Gen 1:20-23

--> Sea creature were brought about, possibly dinosaurs (land and air)

6 -- Land animals; man ---- Gen 1:24-31

--> Wild and domestic animals were brought forth then finally man was created.

7 -- Upon completion of his creative works, God rested or stopped ----- Gen 2:1-3
…

Note - owr - signifies just light.
while ma'owr - signifies sources of light - luminaries.
Whenever ba'ra is used - it's direct creation by God.
Whenever 'asah was used - it meant making it to appear (come to be)

--
As for Chance Event.

To put it to rest, do you believe that chance was responsible for the existence of life?

If so please explain what "chance event" mean to you - because others gave me a different meaning - as in "we don't know anything yet".

P.s.

apologies for the grammatical error - english is not my native toughe.

Posted by: oicur12 | December 31, 2011 2:58 AM

But what about God – does he require a creator?

The simple answer is No – because the information we have about him says that there's ONLY one God – the Creator.

How do you know this information is accurate?

The same source of information implies that this same Creator has no qualms about letting billions of souls burn in Hell, forever, because they had the wrong information. Even if they had no access to your source of information. How do you know, for sure, that you are not one of those divinely deluded doomed souls?

Most of those tormented souls were of the opinion that they had the correct information. Why do you think you are so special?

Why are you of the opinion that your opinion is based on the correct information? We have established that this Creator you speak of apparently has some incomprehensible reason for burning immeasurable souls in a Hell that can only be imagined, just because they have the wrong opinion. Statistically speaking, odds are that you are more likely to have the wrong information. Why do you think you have the correct opinion?

Posted by: Nightjar | December 31, 2011 7:06 AM

Just ask yourself this almost childish question – why is there taste? It's a fact that many animals and as well as humans don't have the ability to taste food – yet they are well and alive.

What do you mean? Are you talking about individuals, both human and non-human, having taste disorders that make them completely unable to taste (and in that case are you sure they're "many" and "well") or many animal species that lack that sense altogether (and in that case I'm pretty sure you're wrong and I'd like a citation for that)?

The DNA alone is a sign of a great handiwork

DNA is unstable in the presence of water. Purposely choosing it to carry our hereditary information is a sign of great stupidity, at best.

And if you're talking about the sequence and not the polymer itself, I must point out that filling it up with broken genes and ERVs that clearly suggest common descent is a sign not of stupidity but of intent to deceive. Why would God do that to us?

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 31, 2011 12:14 PM

The verse talks about water and sky; in Hebrew, "מַיִם" and "שָׁמָיִם"; "mayim" and "shamayim". It's both wordplay, and a primitive idea of rain falling from a source of water up above.

Just to clarify the wordplay a little more: While "שָׁמָיִם"; "shamayim" means "sky", the word "שָׁם"; "sham" means "there", and "שָׁם מָיִם"; "sham mayim" means "water [is] there". The point is not that there is a "water canopy" in the sky; it is that the sky itself is a solid "canopy", and behind (or above) that surface is water.

And another point elided about Genesis 1:14 -- "יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַיֹּום וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה"; "let there be [come into existence] light sources in the firmament of the sky to divide between day and night". This is not how you refer to something that exists but is veiled or shrouded appearing. The light sources are being called into existence. Note also that it explicitly states that the light sources are to divide day and night, which implies that there wasn't anything doing so until this verse happens.

Really, Genesis is very confused.

Genesis 1:15 continues and confirms the wording in Genesis 1:14. The light sources start existing; they do not "appear" from behind something; they are not revealed by anything becoming thinner or moving away.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 31, 2011 3:40 PM

Actually yes you are. There is a whole subset of creationism known as "old earth creationists" and most Christian apologists are of this bent.

More precisely, edmc2 is a day-age creationist. Even here in Europe, many people think that's close enough to what happened.

As explained several times, it's not. The orders of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 don't only contradict each other, they contradict the evidence. Day-age creationism is wrong.

Of course to evolutionists or evolution proponents if you prefer - they look at the evidence in the POV of evolution theory and try to (knowingly or unknowingly) mold the evidence to fit the facts.

I love Freudian typos.

Romans 1:20-21 states that-

I know. It's wrong. It's a pretty laughable assertion, actually, not least because it doesn't even try to support itself with any evidence.

And yet Evolution Scientists are still groping for the mot fundamental aspects of life - The Origin of Life. Where did life came from?

Evolution can only start once there is a self-replicator.

For the theory of evolution it does not matter in the least how that first self-replicator came into being, whether by ordinary chemical reactions* or by miracle. I'm not kidding. The scientists who investigate how the first self-replicator could have come into being are not biologists (evolutionary or otherwise).

* ...many of which have already been discovered... we're working on it.

For those who search for evidence of God, they will see all the universe and never find it. For those who have God in their hearts, they will see all the universe and never see anything OTHER than God. If the inner experience of God is never allowed, the outer evidence is impossible. But if the inner experience of God is ever allowed, outer evidence will be unnecessary.

Translation: in order to be able to believe in God, we first must believe in God.

You're insulting us, and you're gravely insulting your own intelligence.

In 1844, Baha'u'llah said "all the atoms of the universe proclaim the Oneness of God."

Like Romans 1:20–21, he completely failed to provide any evidence that any god exists in the first place.

science has found that indeed all matter is made of one resonant energy, iota of the one source

Matter isn't made of energy. It's one form of energy. What do you even mean by "resonant"?

And iota is the letter I. Again, what do you mean?

When you look each night to the stars, remember: without you, witnessing it, it is all for nothing.

So what?

Why should it be for anything? Can't it exist just so?

You're an incredible narcissist, my friend. You're laughable.

so far I haven't seen any scripture that's untrue. To the contrary they are all accurate.

Then why do so many passages contradict each other?

And not just on trivial points, mind. Here is a short compilation of the times the Bible contradicts itself on what is necessary and what is sufficient for salvation.

Just ask yourself this almost childish question – why is there taste? It's a fact that many animals and as well as humans don't have the ability to taste food –

What? Evidence, please. It's a fact that the sense of taste is very widespread, probably universal among vertebrates, and more general chemical senses* are much more widespread than that.

* In, say, starfish, it doesn't make sense to classify the chemical sense as "taste" or "smell".

yet they are well and alive. Of course to humans – it's a boring existence because there are so many delicious food. So why the taste?

One of your fellow evolutionists told me once that evolution did it so that we will know if a food is poisonous or not. Very unsatisfactory answer –

That's about half of the answer. Many poisons are, indeed, bitter; stuff that is too acidic is often, well, sour.

The other half is that taste lets us know what is good to eat. When we need cheap calories, our sense of taste lets us know where to find sugar; when we need salt, we can find it; when we need to stay away from it, our sense of taste lets us.

Isn't that rather obvious?

Then we have color and the sense of touch.

So does almost everything else.

The DNA alone is a sign of a great handiwork – that man can never duplicate.

What nonsense. Put deoxynucleoside triphosphates together with a catalyst, and you'll get DNA. There are now machines that'll make DNA with a specific sequence for you; they're used for things like making primers for PCR.

But there's billions more to consider including the highly fine-tuned universe.

If you vary only one of the about 20 parameters in your simulation, most of the simulated universes will not be able to house life as we know it or life as we can reasonably imagine it.

If you vary two parameters at once, no less than 21 % of the simulated universes are inhabitable!

"Fine-tuned", my ass! :-)

If there were a carefully documented example of life arising as a chemical reaction, would you be convinced that God was not necessary for life to originate?

Now that would be an amazing feat – confirming the miraculous resurrection” of the the dead that Jesus performed.

...what?

Logic, how does it work?

Of course that would be a game changer so to speak – and will most diffidently violate the universal rule that life can only come from an (always) existing life.

There is no such rule.

First of all, define "life". You're in for a couple of surprises.

@Kroogie – I'm not sure if you're conversing with me

This isn't an e-mail, this is a blog. You are conversing with everyone on the Internet who happens to read what you wrote.

space is infinite

Evidence, please.

That's how Moses wrote Genesis.

Evidence that Moses wrote Genesis?

Evidence that Moses existed?

Evidence that Moses wrote the story of his own death and burial?

Come on. We're waiting.

Means that light is coming from somewhere became visible. Thus a division between day and night can now be establish[ed].

Complete nonsense. The terms "day" and "night" simply don't make any sense unless there's a rotating planet that moves around a star.

A water canopy was made to appear at this stage

and held floating in the air by magic, by a constant miracle.

How stupid do you believe we are?

How stupid do you believe you are?

For that matter, most, heck, all non-avian dinosaurs were not "sea creatures" (although David Marjanović will correct me if I'm wrong about that, but there would only be one or two exceptions).

You're right. One or two have been suggested to have lived in water to some degree, but that's all not too convincing; the only certainly aquatic dinosaurs are birds.

DNA is unstable in the presence of water. Purposely choosing it to carry our hereditary information is a sign of great stupidity, at best.

When molecular biologists want to keep DNA for a bit, they put it in the freezer. When they want to keep it for longer, they put it in the ultrafreezer (at –80 °C, cold enough for dry ice). When they really want to keep it for extended periods, they dry it. I've done that myself.

A large part of our basic metabolism goes into constantly repairing our DNA.

ERVs

Endogenous retroviruses. Retrovirus corpses in all stages of decay. They make up more than half of the human genome, just lying there and rotting, and we faithfully copy them at each cell division.

While "שָׁמָיִם"; "shamayim" means "sky", the word "שָׁם"; "sham" means "there", and "שָׁם מָיִם"; "sham mayim" means "water [is] there".

*picking up jaw from floor*

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | December 31, 2011 4:37 PM

No, that's not a sentence in the Hebrew original. The whole thing is more like:

In the beginning of Gods' creation of the heavens and the earth, when the earth was chaotic and empty and Gods' breath/spirit hovered above the waters, Gods said: "Let there be light", and there was light.

And this one is EVEN WORSE. This one suggests that light was created after the earth, and after water.

And again, the earth was never empty.

This phrasing also suggests that the earth and the waters above which Gods' spirit hovered were already in existence before he got around to starting the business of creation.

It also suggests there's more than one god.

It's all utterly incoherent, even as metaphor.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | December 31, 2011 4:57 PM

And not just on trivial points, mind. Here is a short compilation of the times the Bible contradicts itself on what is necessary and what is sufficient for salvation.

In other words, when the one cardinal who supported Galileo said "the bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go," he was wrong.

EVEN GRANTING it the assumption that heaven exists as it describes, the bible doesn't reliably tell us how to go to heaven.

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 31, 2011 5:17 PM

This one suggests that light was created after the earth, and after water.

So does the standard translation, if you read it carefully.

It also suggests there's more than one god.

Well, that's a known point about the original Hebrew: "Elohim" is the plural form, although it's often treated as singular grammatically. But not always.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | December 31, 2011 5:26 PM

Of course, taste is such an intelligently designed sense. Just five (seriously, out of ALL the chemicals in food, just five?) categories of detection, with everything else requiring a cross-wire with the sense of smell to detect.

And so much of the best tasting stuff causing longterm health problems in old age. GREAT foresight there.

And that cross-reactivity that makes lead-oxide paint powder taste sweet like sugar is such a comfort to a generation of poisoned toddlers.

Posted by: KingUber | December 31, 2011 8:01 PM

Unfortunately, this doesn't account for the lunar bukakke theory http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lunar_bukkake_theory

Posted by: edmc2 | January 7, 2012 11:03 PM

So you're saying that Genesis was written by a bronze-age sheepherder, and contains no more information and insight that what would be known and understandable to a bronze age sheepherder.

Thanks for conceding the argument.

You may go away now.

Interesting that you only know him as "a bronze-age sheepherder". Oh well, I guess if that's the extent of you're knowledge of him then pity.

Anyway just to let you know - he's more than that. In fact he was once in line to be the next Pharaoh of Egypt but rejected it for the sake of his mistreated people. And because of his humility he was chosen by God to compile and write the first five books of the Bible - the Pentateuch.

Anyone familiar with the Pentateuch know that Moses was not just a great writer but also a great historian, a leader, a warrior and above all someone who was given the knowledge of space and time.

A simple example - he wrote the following:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth -- NKJV."

Question is - how did Moses know that the "heavens" - the universe - had a beginning?

Where did he get this information if we've just recently learned this scientific fact?

I.e - "the moment of creation" as other call it - "The Big Bang"?

The most obvious and logical answer is from someone who has knowledge of Space and Time - The Creator Jehovah God.

Posted by: Stanton | January 8, 2012 1:29 AM

Nonsense. Who ever wrote the bible didn't even know that insects have six legs, not four.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 8, 2012 1:49 AM

Someone on Wikipedia tried to argue for the accuracy of the Bible, claiming that, in Hebrew, there was a difference between a(n insect's) leg for walking/crawling, and a leg used for hopping.

No, that doesn't work.

The bible talks about flying insects that walk on four feet as not being kosher. That verse can't be talking about locusts, since that's the verse that comes right before it discusses locusts (which it says have "legs above their feet to leap withal upon the earth", but still says they walk on four [feet]), and says that they are kosher.

Posted by: edmc2 | January 8, 2012 2:27 AM

I thought Moses' brother, the son of the Pharaoh, was in line to be the next Pharaoh of Egypt.

Do you have a reference for this?

Your correct - Moses' brother, the son of the Pharaoh, was in line to be the next Pharaoh of Egypt. So does Moses for the scripture say:

Act 7:22 ESV - "And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds."

A person afforded such wisdom and power is being prepared for a very important role in the Egyptian Kingdom.

Yet:

Hbr 11:24 ESV - "By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter,"

Hbr 11:25 ESV - "choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin."

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 8, 2012 3:04 AM

OK - let's see how far will you take this one.
Jesus Christ:

Why on earth am I supposed to just accept Jesus Christ as an authority?

First Century Christians:

Why on earth am I supposed to just accept them as an authority?

If Moses as you say never existed

I didn't say "never existed"; I wrote that there's no evidence he existed.

Why and how then that many of the places, events and persons that Moses mentioned in his writings were corroborated to be real?

The places were real, but a place being real does not corroborate anything else about a story! Does the fact that "The Wizard of Oz" mentions Kansas "corroborate" the story?

None of the events or persons mentioned by Moses have been corroborated as real. For pity's sake, the story of Moses doesn't even give a name to the Pharaoh who supposedly ruled Egypt at the time! There's nothing to corroborate!

"The biblical account of the oppression of the Israelites appears to be corroborated in one often-reproduced tomb painting from ancient Egypt in which the making of mud bricks by a gang of slaves is depicted in explicit detail."

Nonsense. There's nothing that indicates that the people depicted are Israelites.

The Bible's description of the tiny ark Jochebed used likewise rings true. The Bible says that it was made of papyrus, which, according to Cook's Commentary, "was commonly used by the Egyptians for light and swift boats."

So what? Just because people make boats doesn't mean that every story involving a boat is true!

Does the fact that whaling ships existed mean that "Moby Dick" really happened?

Then there's the Tower of Babel (Gen 11).

So what?

The references to Egypt, Canaan, Amalek, Ammon, Moab, and Edom are faithful to the times, and place-names are accurately stated.

So what?

"Archaeology has been speaking so loudly of late that it is causing a decided reaction toward the conservative view [that Moses wrote the Pentateuch]. The theory that writing was unknown in Moses' day is absolutely exploded. And every year there are being dug up in Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia, evidences, both in inscriptions and earth layers, that the narratives of the [Hebrew Scriptures] are true historical records. And 'scholarship' is coming to have decidedly more respect for the tradition of Mosaic authorship." --Halley's Bible Handbook, 1988, Henry H. Halley, page 56.

Halley is misrepresenting the truth. Actually, he's flat-out lying.

- Archaeologists had Egyptian, Akkadian, and Sumerian writing, so there was never a "theory" that writing was unknown in Moses' day.

- There is no evidence that has been dug up anywhere that supports the narratives of the Bible being "true historical records" for any point in time before about the seventh century BCE; a bit before the conquest of the kingdom of Israel by Sennacherib. There is no evidence for an invasion of Canaan by Joshua; indeed, the evidence contradicts the idea that there was a sudden rapid invasion. There is no evidence that Israelites were in Egypt, or that the ten plagues happened, or that millions of Israelites -- or any large number of Israelites -- traveled through Sinai for any length of time, let alone forty years. Archaeologists have looked. There's nothing to find.

- Scholarship does not have any respect for the tradition of Mosaic authorship.

Here:

  http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html

I can list more but the point is if such places, events and persons had been corroborated - then what does it say about the person who wrote them?

Since the events and persons have not been corroborated, and in many places have been contradicted, it says that the person who wrote them was making most of it up.

Real person or as you say "myth"?

I didn't say "myth" -- you did.

Of course an honest person will arrive at the logical conclusion that Moses was indeed a real person.

An honest person who is informed in archaeology and biblical scholarship will arrive at the logical conclusion that if Moses was real, he did almost nothing that he was claimed to do, and the stories about him were probably almost entirely fictional.

Just like Jesus and the first century Christians were real persons - so was Moses.

What makes you think Jesus was a real person?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 8, 2012 6:39 AM

Yawn, edmc2, you can't prove the babble by citing the babble. You need third party evidence to prove the babble. And you presented nothing like that. So, all you presented was self-references, which is tacitly admitting you have nothing of evidence to show authenticity.

You creobots/godbots use circular reasoning. God proves the babble, which proves god, which proves the babble, ad infinitum. Circular reasoning is a form of presupposition. The problem is that you must break that circle, and either prove your imaginary deity or mythical/fictional babble. So, pick one and prove the it is real, with solid and conclusive physical evidence. Then, and only then, can you use the first as evidence for the second.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 8, 2012 10:06 AM

Moses' brother, the son of the Pharaoh

Which pharaoh? As Owlmirror said, the Bible doesn't tell, it doesn't even hint.

Worse yet, whoever wrote Exodus was so ignorant as to use the title "pharaoh" as a name: "Pharaoh, king of Egypt". This is especially embarrassing as 2 Kings has no trouble mentioning the well-attested Pharaoh Necho by name.

Act 7:22 ESV - "And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds."

A person afforded such wisdom and power is being prepared for a very important role in the Egyptian Kingdom.

LOL, do you really believe the only "very important role" was succession? That country had a huge government apparatus with lots of jobs that required "all the wisdom of the Egyptians" and "mighty [...] words and deeds".

Posted by: edmc2 | January 9, 2012 2:10 PM

Or that the author was a priest?

The former comes from actually knowing something about cosmology and Earth history, and being able to read Genesis 1, and note the differences. The latter comes from a book by the biblical scholar Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?

I see, your source is the "biblical scholar" Richard Elliott Friedman.

In that case - do you know how or why Mr. Friedman came to the conclusion - that Moses was not the writer of Genesis or the other four books?

Who are these "priests" that he attributed as the "writers" of Genesis - do you know?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 9, 2012 3:09 PM

Still no conclusive (note even barely suggestive) evidence for edmc2's imaginary deity or mythical/fictional babble being inerrant. The argument is lost, as all he has is presuppositions. He just can't admit defeat like a person of honesty and integrity would do.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 9, 2012 3:41 PM

Although there are historical evidence that confirm what Moses and the Israelite saw and experienced while in Egypt.

Since there is no evidence of "Moses and the Israelites" in Egypt, there cannot be evidence that confirms that they saw or experienced anything there.

Posted by: edmc2 | January 9, 2012 5:56 PM

There is nothing like this in all of the recorded history of Egypt.

The best explanation is that it didn't happen. It was made up.

Unfortunately if you're relying Egypt's secular/religious annals to disprove the authenticity of the Bible, i.e. the writings of Moses, then good luck to you on that endeavor.

As already mentioned it's a practice in Egypt to erase any historical evidence that puts the mighty nation into a bad light. In fact, many of the historical artifacts/documents that had been discovered so far are full of lies, inaccuracies and most of all extreme exaggeration. After all the mighty Pharaoh is considered not just a representative of the gods but the incarnation of Horus - the Falcon-headed god.

And among the pompous titles accorded him were “the sun of the two worlds,” “Lord of the Crown,” “the mighty god,” “offspring of Ra,” “the eternal,” and many, many others. (History of Ancient Egypt, by G. Rawlinson, 1880, Vol. I, pp. 373, 374; History of the World, by J. Ridpath, 1901, Vol. I, p. 72)

So it's evident how unreliable their records are.

In fact Professor of Egyptology J. A. Wilson states that:

“Egyptian records were always positive, emphasizing the successes of the pharaoh or the god, whereas failures and defeats were never mentioned, except in some context of the distant past.” (The World History of the Jewish People, 1964, Vol. I, pp. 338, 339)

And according to Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge:

“The information which has been obtained from native Egyptian monuments as to dates is, at present, insufficient to enable us to correct the mistakes in the figures of Manetho’s List which are due to the carelessness or ignorance of copyists, and until some other means of doing this is found, it is idle to shuffle and torture his figures, as many writers on Egyptian chronology are pleased to do.” (A History of Egypt, 1902, Vol. I, Preface, p. xvi)

So can you see that the Egyptians were not above destroying records of a previous reign if the information was distasteful to the pharaoh then in power. Thus, after the death of Queen Hatshepsut (as already mentioned), Thutmose III had her names and representations chiseled out of the monumental reliefs.

Matter of fact this practice is still being done even in our 21st century. Put the previous occupants in a bad light even destroying records in order to prop up the current occupant.

So again to use Egypt's historical records is like a moving target - very unreliable especially when dealing with facts.

Notice the difficulty faced by Egyptologists to reconstruct and revise their views of Egyptian history.

According to --- 1st Dynasty Begins
Champollion --- 5867 B.C.E.
Mariette --- 5004 “
Lauth --- 4157 “
Lepsius --- 3892 “
Breasted --- 3400 “
Meyer --- 3180 “
Wilkinson --- 2320 “
Palmer --- 2224 “

Add to this variety the date presently popular among historians of about 2900 B.C.E.

But the Biblical record is accurate when compared with proven and known historical facts.

In fact the Bible writers writings / work testifies to their consciousness of the importance of being accurate especially when they were dealing with time measurement. They have no reason but to precise and accurate since they were instructed to do so that way.

As an example - the genealogical record in the fifth chapter of the Bible book of Genesis.

How thoroughly each generation is tied in with the next! Nothing is left to chance. If you go back and read it you will learn the age of each one listed, both at the time of fathering his heir and at the time of his death.

There is nothing comparable to this in Egyptian annals!!

So to say that the event never happened is like saying the river Nile never existed.

Like I said - if historians have difficulty even conjecturing Egypt's timelines using Egypt's own records - how much more will they (Egyptians) allow such events to be recorded in their annals?

Very low chance if not zero.

Although like I said there historical evidence that proves Moses' writings are accurate and factual.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/HfGHWzBroZSDz.NpHcP4muka6d28OfRZ#dcb08 | January 9, 2012 8:24 PM

As an example - the genealogical record in the fifth chapter of the Bible book of Genesis.

How thoroughly each generation is tied in with the next! Nothing is left to chance. If you go back and read it you will learn the age of each one listed, both at the time of fathering his heir and at the time of his death.

Do you agree with Mr. Myers that Evolution Theory is based on CHANCE EVENTS?

That BLIND CHANCE is the prime mover of evolution?

That without it - evolution is not possible?

Posted by: edmc2 | January 9, 2012 8:28 PM

Do you agree with Mr. Myers that Evolution Theory is based on CHANCE EVENTS?

That BLIND CHANCE is the prime mover of evolution?

That without it - evolution is not possible?

It might be a good idea to ascertain whether Mr. Myers agrees with all that.

Would be good if he can chime in and shed further light.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 9, 2012 9:38 PM

Life can only come from an Already Existing Life.

Do you agree with Mr. Myers that Evolution Theory is based on CHANCE EVENTS?

And still no evidence for your imaginary deity or mythical/fictional babble, as you have no idea what real evidence means.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 9, 2012 10:41 PM

Just to address this a bit more:

More powerful than Cleopatra or Nefertiti, Hatshepsut stole the throne from her young stepson, dressed herself as a man and in an unprecedented move declared herself pharaoh. Though her power stretched across Egypt and her reign was prosperous, Hatshepsut’s legacy was systematically erased from Egyptian history—historical records were destroyed, monuments torn down and her corpse removed from her tomb—and her death is shrouded in mystery.

While there was obviously an attempt to erase Hatshepsut, this obviously failed, since otherwise we would not know her name!

Enough inscriptions and records of her did exist and remained uncensored -- or remained with enough information to reconstruct that they were about her -- for archaeologists to have quite a lot of information about her.

And the same would have been true if Israelites had ever lived in Egypt, and escaped after 10 devastating disasters, leaving the country in impoverished ruin.

Posted by: Stanton | January 9, 2012 10:50 PM

It seems strange to tout how Thutmose III had all mention of Hatshepsut literally and thoroughly erased, given as how the stupid troll is able to talk about her as though she had once existed.

Posted by: edmc2 | January 9, 2012 11:20 PM

"Life can only come from an Already Existing Life."

I win. There had to be a first life coming from nothing. Who created your imaginary deity? Who created that "creator". Ad infinitum. Evolution is there in the background whether you admit it or not.

....A very powerful process, not needing your imaginary deity.

Now this is what I call BLIND FAITH that you can be proud of!

It fails both the test of common sense and logic and above all known scientific facts.

That life can only come from Life!

But hey, if you have faith that nothing created everything - then more power to you.

As for me, common sense and logic tells me that in order for life to exist - Life must already exist. Or to be precise - an Always Existing Life-Form with the knowledge, power and ability to impart and create life.

In fact it requires more faith to believe that NOTHING created life than believing that God is the source of life.

Why?

Because scientific facts states that:

Life can only come from an existing life unless you can prove otherwise.

Miller/Urey experiment anyone?

Posted by: edmc2 | January 9, 2012 11:41 PM

Even in your logically fallacious special-pleading argument by fiat, God still violates the "rule".

An yet you believe and accept the fact that there many phenomenons in the universe that are beyond our grasp that "seem to violate" the universally accepted "rule" and laws in the universe.

So I guess proponents of Creation (like me) are more open minded and forward thinking as we don't see such violation. But rather we see them operate in a different sets of rules - beyond our current grasp.

For example - what laws govern such phenomenons as "Black Hole" or "quantum entanglement", etc?

I guess I can't accept that NOTHING created everything because i can't accept blind faith.

So more power to you.

Posted by: Stanton | January 10, 2012 12:31 AM

edmc2, how come you refuse to explain to us why saying GODDIDIT, or, that God magically poofed everything into existence, using magic, over the course of 6 twenty-four hour days, as per a literal reading of the Bible, is supposed to be more scientific than actual science?

Too afraid or too lazy?

Posted by: edmc2 | January 10, 2012 2:16 AM

edmc2, how come you refuse to explain to us why saying GODDIDIT, or, that God magically poofed everything into existence, using magic, over the course of 6 twenty-four hour days, as per a literal reading of the Bible, is supposed to be more scientific than actual science?

Too afraid or too lazy?

Who's saying that "that God magically poofed everything into existence, using magic, over the course of 6 twenty-four hour days".

That's a fallacy. In fact the statements made in the Bible when they touch or deal with known scientific facts they are in agreement.

Like I said and many proponents of Biblical Creation (xept Creationist or Creation Science) believe and understand that the creative "days" in Genesis creation account are not literal 24 hr days but an "epoch" - an event in time - taking thousands of years.

In fact here's what I said in post#4

As a believer of Biblical Creation - I don't subscribe to an earth being 6000-10000 years old. It's more like around 4BYO as indicated by radiometric dating. And it is no way in contradiction with the Bible's statement at Genesis 1:1 -

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth -- NKJV."

This can easily mean millions and millions or even billions of years.

But if you prefer to read it literally then no one is stopping you.

The elements used to create man also agrees with scientific facts - that man was of the elements of the earth.

Than man himself is a unique creation - set apart from other creations of God.

So no "poofing" --- but by great wisdom and superlative intelligence life was created by God.

Of course like evolution theory - since no human one was literally present during the "day" of creation - it's impossible to know actual processes that God used to create man - 'xept of course all of the information we have in the Scriptures.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 10, 2012 4:05 AM

Like I said and many proponents of Biblical Creation (xept Creationist or Creation Science) believe and understand that the creative "days" in Genesis creation account are not literal 24 hr days but an "epoch" - an event in time - taking thousands of years.

You're just pretending that the original Hebrew means whatever you want it to mean. The actual text does not support this, especially since it gets the order wrong.

This can easily mean millions and millions or even billions of years.

Only by wilfully distorting the text, which actually specifies days with morning and evening.

The elements used to create man also agrees with scientific facts - that man was of the elements of the earth.

That's ludicrously silly. Humans are mostly water. OK, there's other elements as well, which do come from the earth, but so what? Where are they supposed to come from, Schenectady?

So no "poofing" --- but by great wisdom and superlative intelligence life was created by God.

You have no evidence that God exists, or has wisdom, or intelligence, let alone created anything.

it's impossible to know actual processes that God used to create man - 'xept of course all of the information we have in the Scriptures.

How is a book of fairy-tales "information"?

======

But where do you think life came from?

Was it not from nothing?

You believe that life came from nothing, too. God made life, nothing made God, so nothing made life.

So what what was the force behind Natural Selection?

Reality.

======

You never answered the question asked in #81. Go on. Answer it.

Posted by: Nightjar | January 10, 2012 7:08 AM

It's also worth pointing out that the line between life and non-life is blurry. It's not clearly defined. Just think of viruses. They're usually not considered to be living organisms because they're not made of cells and don't have their own metabolism, but it's not obvious that they're completely non-living either. They do reproduce and evolve, just not on their own... but the same is true for some bacteria and we consider them to be alive anyway. It's tricky. And wherever we end up tracing the line, it's always somewhat arbitrary because we want a distinct line when the real one is blurry.

So, with that in mind, doesn't a gradual transition between non-living chemical systems and living biochemical systems seem like a reasonable hypothesis for the origin of life? Chemistry slowly and gradually crossing that fuzzy line in a favourable environment? Why does that idea sound so ridiculous to you, edmc2? There's nothing magic about life, so why is a supernatural being required to explain it?

Posted by: Stanton | January 10, 2012 9:11 AM

In fact here's what I said in post#4 As a believer of Biblical Creation - I don't subscribe to an earth being 6000-10000 years old. It's more like around 4BYO as indicated by radiometric dating. And it is no way in contradiction with the Bible's statement at Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth -- NKJV." This can easily mean millions and millions or even billions of years. But if you prefer to read it literally then no one is stopping you.

Furthermore, you still have not explained how the Bible is more scientific than actual science. All you've done is do a bunch of pointless handwaving with scripture in your hand, then demand that we bend over and kiss your spotty ass for doing it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 10, 2012 2:10 PM

Why should I lie?

That is why i say show evidence from the peer reviewed scientific literature which has secondary checks in place, and changes as the evidence changes. Unlike the unchanging lies of your book of mythology/fiction, which you can't/won't hold up to proper scrutiny, and can't be changed.

Posted by: Nightjar | January 10, 2012 2:43 PM

I hope I made myself clear.

Yes, you did make it perfectly clear that you're an ignorant moron who knows nothing about science but still feels entitled to categorize it into "true science" and "false science" based solely on whether it can be made to conform to what is written on the self-contradicting book you worship.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: edmc2 | January 10, 2012 2:51 PM

Yes, you did make it perfectly clear that you're an ignorant moron who knows nothing about science but still feels entitled to categorize it into "true science" and "false science" based solely on whether it can be made to conform to what is written on the self-contradicting book you worship.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

So in addition to being called a "science-hating Idiots For Jesus" I'm also "an ignorant moron who knows nothing about science".

Man, so much hostility here - lighten up dude.

Don't get your pants so twisted.

But may I know what I said that you so twisted that you judge me as ""an ignorant moron who knows nothing about science"?

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 10, 2012 3:22 PM

First of all - who is forcing you?

Not every creationist believes in religious freedom, or freedom of conscience, or freedom of inquiry.

Second, who are these "science-hating Idiots For Jesus" are you talking about?

Creationists.

Third, just because I believe in Jesus as my savior that makes me a "science-hating idiot" in your book?

Obviously not necessarily. There are Christians who accept science and evolution.

why do you believe that religion and science are separate?

I'm not sure what you mean by that, exactly. I think that science can address matters which have, traditionally, been held to be out-of-bounds by religion.

In fact there are thousands of men and women of faith who are scientists or work in the field of Science.

True, but they don't think scientifically about their religious faith. They are the ones who separate their religion, and their science.

But I wonder what would you do to such people (like me) if you were given the power to govern?

Not a whole lot.

I might make sure that critical thinking and understanding of the scientific method was taught in every school, so that students understand how science works, and how the fairy-tales of the bible -- and other writings of other religions -- are nothing more than the work of fallible men.

Will you force me to recount my faith in the name of science?

The word is "recant". And no, I would not force you to "recant".

Remember the dark ages when the "church" leaders wielded power? Persons like Sir Isaac Newton, Kepler, and others were considered as heretics.

Newton was, technically, a heretic, because he rejected the trinity. But he wasn't considered one because he kept his mouth shut about his religious beliefs. Neither was Kepler considered a heretic; enough natural philosophers were coming to accept the possibility of heliocentrism that it was not called heresy to believe it and promote it.

Ready to condemn anyone as "idiots (heretics)" because they happen to believe in God and Jesus Christ?

I think there's something wrong in the thinking of believers. I'm not sure if it's idiocy, or something else.

However, you, specifically, are desperately ignorant about the topics you've argued here: cosmology, biology, archaeology, history, biblical criticism. And I do think that your defense of your ignorance is idiotic.

The issue is - when science is used as a tool to bend truthful Scientific facts.



Like - Life can come from non-living materials or that we evolved from brute creatures millions of years ago. That intelligent life-forms can come about by chance or by accident.

Life does come from non-living materials. Plants take in carbon dioxide and water (which are not alive), and use the energy from the sun to make the chemicals that they use to grow. The plants are killed -- they become non-living -- and the chemicals that they made are taken in by us (and other animals), and combined with oxygen, and we use those chemicals to grow.

We did evolve from brute creatures millions of years ago -- as best we can tell, anyway. Why do you think we didn't?

And, as has been repeatedly explained, the thesis is that intelligent life forms have come about by contingent chance and selection.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that they did not.

I hope I made myself clear.

Can you clearly answer the question I asked above in #81? Here, I'll post it again:

======

Do you think nothing in biology is the result of chance? Do you believe that God designed parasites and diseases as well as humans? Do you believe that genetic diseases were carefully crafted by God to kill some children young, and all of those that died young were deliberately killed by God, who made sure that the children would have the genes that gave them the disease?

Posted by: Nightjar | January 10, 2012 3:24 PM

Man, so much hostility here - lighten up dude.

I'm not a dude and I don't need to lighten up.

I also note that you didn't address my previous posts. Was it because they weren't hostile enough? Or because you can't answer the questions?

But may I know what I said that you so twisted that you judge me as ""an ignorant moron who knows nothing about science"?

Well, that's easy. If you knew anything about science you wouldn't be creationist. You wouldn't dismiss a big part of the knowledge it gave us just because, like I said, it doesn't conform to what is written on the self-contradicting book you worship. What else makes you dismiss the whole field of evolutionary biology in particular? It's no different than any other field. It's well established. There is no scientific reason to dismiss it and you haven't even tried to present one. What's your problem with it?

Posted by: edmc2 | January 10, 2012 3:44 PM

Pardon me Nigthjar dudette.

What else makes you dismiss the whole field of evolutionary biology in particular?

For one, evolution theory - abiogenesis has no real foundation.

It's all based on imagined event - an unguided chance event that is.

For how did the first so called "Selfish Gene" came to be without someone guiding its creation?

No one really knows for sure except of course by mere conjecture and assumptions.

Bottom line if Evolution/Abiogenesis theory is a fact.

Where's the scientific evidence that life (a living - breathing thing) can arise from inanimate substance?

Posted by: edmc2 | January 10, 2012 4:00 PM

How is calling a big book of Middle-Eastern fairy-tales the "Word of God" different from worship?

What do you think "worship" means?

Simple, because I don't worship it.

I read it and study it but not worship it like it is God.

Although there are people who do that - but hey that's their choice.

Posted by: Nightjar | January 10, 2012 4:26 PM

"self-contradicting book you worship" - the Bible calls this Idolatry.

Oh, alright, I'll rephrase. You reject evolution because it doesn't conform to what is written on the self-contradicting book you believe to be the Word of the fictional genocidal tyrant you worship and call God. Better that way?

For one, evolution theory - abiogenesis has no real foundation.

Can we do one at a time? The theory of evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing, and abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. I asked you about evolution and you went on to ask questions about abiogenesis.

Well, since Owlmirror has answered them already I'll just insist with my question. What makes you dismiss the whole field of evolutionary biology?

Posted by: edmc2 | January 10, 2012 4:51 PM

@Nightjar

The theory of evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing, and abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. I asked you about evolution and you went on to ask questions about abiogenesis.

It's interesting that you say that because that is not what I learned from Professor Myers. Unless I misread what he said.

Anyway, here's what he said on another thread.

Sometimes creationists say things like, "Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life!" The common reply is that that's the domain of abiogenesis, not evolution, with the implied suggestion that the creationist should go away and quit bugging us.

That's a cop-out.

I'm going to be somewhat heretical, and suggest that abiogenesis as the study of chemical evolution is a natural subset of evolutionary theory, and that we should own up to it. It's natural processes all the way back, baby, no miracles required.

read the rest here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/life_is_chemistry.php

So can you please clarify what he said?

Should I take your word or his word?

Posted by: Nightjar | January 10, 2012 5:16 PM

So can you please clarify what he said?

What PZ is saying, and I've said it myself on this blog a couple of times, is that the mechanisms behind biological evolution were also at play in that transition I was mentioning above from non-living chemical systems to living biochemical systems. Because as soon as the first self-replicating (but not necessarily living) system appeared, Darwinian evolution could start working on it and "guiding" it towards more efficient self-replicators and eventually something we would call life. I completely agree with that. This is often called chemical evolution, to distinguish it from biological evolution which concerns the evolution of life much after the abiogenesis event.

So, my point is: biological evolution does not depend on abiogenesis. The former could be true even if some intelligent being was involved in the latter. And I was asking about the former. Evolutionary biology, not prebiotic chemistry. I could, for example, ask if you accept common descent and, if not, why not. That would have nothing to do with abiogenesis, the evidence for common descent does not depend on it.

But whatever. Your derail, your topic.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 10, 2012 5:58 PM

I'm quite surprised that you've even questioned the use of the title "Pharaoh" as the designated name of the King of ancient Egypt.

Man, is that embarrassing. See comments 68 and 71.

Again: 2 Kings: "Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt". Exodus: "Pharaoh, king of Egypt".

What do you expect the Egyptians should do when they just got beaten so badly by their own slaves?

Don't be silly. There's no trace of the arrival, presence or exodus of the Hebrews, neither in Egyptian inscriptions nor in anyone else's inscriptions* nor, importantly, in archeology.

Egyptian history-faking was rather crude. Often, just the names of people like Hatshepsut were chiseled out of inscriptions, leaving obvious holes. There is no holey (pun intended) inscription that would fit, say, Joseph or his Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.

Archeology... if 600,000 men, not counting women, children, livestock etc., had left Egypt at once, that would leave traces in Egypt that aren't there; if that many people, with or without livestock and whatnot, had passed the Sinai peninsula, that would leave glaringly obvious traces that simply aren't there. Did you follow the link Owlmirror provided? Every little Neolithic settlement in the Sinai has been easy to discover, yet of the exodus there's no trace. Either the Bible is wrong and God held the Israelites aloft in the air while they "marched" across the Sinai, their feet never touching the ground; or the Bible is wrong and the whole story never happened in the first place.

* Plenty of diplomatic correspondence between Egypt and other countries is preserved, for instance.

Although there are [sic] historical evidence that confirm what Moses and the Israelite saw and experienced while in Egypt.

Is there any evidence of their presence there?

their general affiliations and times they lived are inferred from the style of writing

and the stage of Hebrew they wrote in. Several hundred years lie between the oldest and the youngest Hebrew parts of the Bible, and it shows!

“The information which has been obtained from native Egyptian monuments as to dates is, at present, insufficient to enable us to correct the mistakes in the figures of Manetho’s List which are due to the carelessness or ignorance of copyists, and until some other means of doing this is found, it is idle to shuffle and torture his figures, as many writers on Egyptian chronology are pleased to do.” (A History of Egypt, 1902, Vol. I, Preface, p. xvi)

Nineteen fucking two?

Have you no shame?

Aren't you ashamed to imply that no research has been done since then, or that it has had no successes?

The exact years are still not trivial to pin down, but they're now known a lot better than in 1902.

Notice the difficulty faced by Egyptologists to reconstruct and revise their views of Egyptian history.

And then you give us a list of Egyptologists of the nineteenth century!

Champollion lived when Napoleon did, too! How the fuck is he relevant!

But the Biblical record is accurate when compared with proven and known historical facts.

Do tell.

As an example - the genealogical record in the fifth chapter of the Bible book of Genesis.

How thoroughly each generation is tied in with the next! Nothing is left to chance. If you go back and read it you will learn the age of each one listed, both at the time of fathering his heir and at the time of his death.

And all of it is made up!

Even in the New Testament, the two genealogies of Joseph contradict each other. They can't even agree on the name of Joseph's father. If that's what divine inspiration looks like...

Life can only come from an Already Existing Life.

Not true, not even if you write it in boldface and Three Capital Letters.

Now my question to you. Do you agree with Mr. Myers that Evolution Theory is based on CHANCE EVENTS?

That BLIND CHANCE is the prime mover of evolution?

That without it - evolution is not possible?

Without chance, evolution would indeed be difficult, but what do you even mean by "prime mover"? Evolution consists of mutation, which is random, and selection, which is not random but determined by the environment. :-|

Now, what is your point? Evolution can only happen once there's a self-replicator. The first self-replicator must come about by means other than evolution; much research has been done on this, and while the results haven't filled in every last gap yet, we've come pretty far. Look it up; the word you want is abiogenesis.

Miller/Urey experiment anyone?

Miller/Urey experiment what? What's your point?

But rather we see them operate in a different sets of rules - beyond our current grasp.

For example - what laws govern such phenomenons as "Black Hole" or "quantum entanglement", etc?

o_O

*blink*

O_o

Both black holes and quantum entanglement were predicted from relativity theory and quantum theory (respectively) – decades before they were first observed.

Where do you get your information from? Do you just dream it up???

And do you seriously believe everyone knows as little as you do?

In fact the statements made in the Bible when they touch or deal with known scientific facts they are in agreement.

Genesis 1 says birds appeared at the same time as fish and before land animals. That's wrong. Shall I go on?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth -- NKJV."

First, learn to quote. Taken literally, what you just did was lying. Here's what you want:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." – NKJV

So. Owlmirror. What do you think of "God created" vs. "of God's creation of" as the better translation? That should be very easy to find out for anyone who knows more Hebrew than I do.

The elements used to create man also agrees with scientific facts - that man was of the elements of the earth.

*eyeroll* Hard to avoid. All elements occur on Earth. Yes, even though Star Trek claims otherwise.

(...Nothing against Star Trek. In fact, you'd learn a thing or three from watching it, in spite of its flaws.)

Than man himself is a unique creation - set apart from other creations of God.

Hardly more unique or set apart than any other species, and not – as far as the evidence says – a creation.

But where do you think life came from?

Was it not from nothing?

Of course not. It came from simple sugars, simple amino acids, and the like.

The universe probably came from nothing (which makes perfect sense within quantum theory). Life? No. Life is merely an activity of matter.

OH - Natural Selection - I see. So what what was the force behind Natural Selection?

What a stupid way to shout at us that you have no idea what the term "natural selection" means.

Some mutations make their bearers better at having surviving fertile offspring than others, given the environment the population lives in. That's called natural selection for those mutations.

Some mutations make their bearers worse at having surviving fertile offspring than others, given the environment the population lives in. (In extreme cases they make them completely infertile and/or dead.) That's called natural selection against those mutations.

Really. It really is that simple.

OK, there's other elements as well, which do come from the earth, but so what? Where are they supposed to come from, Schenectady?

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

So what what was the force behind Natural Selection?

Reality.

Actually, that's a good way to put it.

Just think of viruses. They're usually not considered to be living organisms because they're not made of cells and don't have their own metabolism, but it's not obvious that they're completely non-living either.

"Life" is simply a case where human language doesn't map to reality.

As Douglas Adams said, language was selected for allowing us to tell our fellow apes where the nearest fruit tree was. It didn't evolve for discussions about science.

life (a living - breathing thing)

...Did you just seriously equate living with breathing???

E=mc2 explains that Energy can be transformed into matter but where or what is the source of energy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

BTW, there's a short explanation of quantum entanglement on that page, too.

See what I mean?

I don't, because you switch back and forth between the origin of life and the origin of the universe which happened ten billion years earlier.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/life_is_chemistry.php

So can you please clarify what he said?

He doesn't define "living" as merely "able to replicate itself". The way the first entity PZ would accept as "living" arose from the first self-replicator by evolution, that's what he points out in that post, and we all agree on it. (We may or may not agree on whether whatever his definition of "living" is is the best one; but that's completely beside the point.)

The way the first entity PZ would accept as "living" arose from the first self-replicator, and the way the first self-replicator arose from simpler chemicals, both don't require any miracles; it's natural processes all the way back.

Posted by: Stanton | January 10, 2012 6:29 PM

So can you please clarify what he said? Should I take your word or his word?

Explain to us how reading worshiping the Bible as though it were a science textbook will bring us better understanding of the differences seen in successive generations of living or fossil organisms than actually attempting to study them.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | January 10, 2012 6:50 PM

The prime mover of evolution, if evolution could even be said to move, is nonrandom natural selection.

What we observe as evolution, the changing of phenotypes and genotypes in living populations over time, whether in living animals or in the fossil record, is produced by the action of natural selection.

Chance, in the form of random mutations, creates the background upon which movement is allowed. It does not move anything on its own. Nonrandom natural selection does the movement.

Natural selection is the engine of evolution, the mover of evolution. Variation is the fuel. Random mutation is the gas pump the refills the fuel tank. If all random mutations suddenly stopped, evolution would continue going as if nothing happened until the pre-existing variation runs out (and it may never run out - variants may cycle in and out of prominence indefinitely).

If you start with a hypothetical population of self-replicators that cannot mutate, but for which there is pre-existing variation (you could even postulate that the replicators were designed entities with the variation designed in), that population would happily evolve, and not require a single new mutation to do so.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 10, 2012 7:24 PM

What do you think of "God created" vs. "of God's creation of" as the better translation?

The latter just doesn't work as a grammatically exact translation. I mean, I can understand how you could get to it, as an exegetical summary or rephrasing, but the grammar just doesn't match.

Maybe this will explain, since the author gets down into a very close examination of the grammar. I'm not sure how the text will show up, but:

Barry Bandstra, Genesis 1-11, p. 43:

‫ .בְּרֵאשִׁית‬Theme: textual / Circumstance: location, time > prep phrase: prep + noun common ms. Literally, in a first, perhaps meaning at commencement, or initially. Many translations render the noun רֵאשִׁית as the beginning and the prep phrase as in the beginning, but the noun is indefinite. The translation when, reflected in the NRSV and other versions, comes from analyzing ‫ בּ‬in a temporal circumstantial sense, which then renders the clause a hypotactic temporal one. Understood this way, the precise meaning of this phrase and its effect on the syntax of the first three verses was famously disputed in the twelfth century when Ibn Ezra viewed verse 1 as a temporal clause subordinate to verse 2 as the main clause, and Rashi viewed verse 1 as a temporal clause subordinate to verse 3 as the main clause.

‫ .בָּרָא‬Finite > qatal 3ms / Process > qal ‫ .בּרא‬ The syntactic relationship of ‫ בְּרֵאשִׁית‬and ‫ בָּרָא‬ is disputed by some, but should not be. Some interpreters construe ‫ בָּרָא‬as if it were in a construct or bound relationship with ‫ ,רֵאשִׁית‬ translating in the beginning of God's creating. But ‫ בָּרָא‬is a finite verb and not an infinitive; normally both components of a construct phrase must be nominal forms. Furthermore, the disjunctive tifcha accent on ‫ בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית‬argues against it being in construct with the following word.

Speaking of Hebrew, I was wondering how the current MT compares to the the Samaritan version of the text, and I found this site:

  http://web.meson.org/religion/torahcompare.php

As he notes, there are many different versions of the Samaritan bible; they didn't lock down the system for copying the text in the way that the Masoretes did. But still, there it is.

I also browsed some other links on his site -- have you heard of Visible Speech?

  http://web.meson.org/write/vispeech.php

Posted by: edmc2 | January 12, 2012 8:05 PM

@Stanton

Then explain to us why invalidating abiogenesis will magically, physically prevent us from observing, understanding, or even appreciating the differences seen in successive generations of living or fossil organisms.

Who's saying the above? Must be you because I did not say it.

Besides why or how can "invalidating abiogenesis"..."prevent us from observing, understanding, or even appreciating the differences seen in successive generations of living or fossil organisms"?

I fail to see the correlation.

But there's one thing I do see - since "abiogenesis" is still an unproven theory and since evolution theory is based on it then it's a baseless theory.

And you can cite all the books and studies that you want to "prove" that theory is a fact but if it has no foundation then it will not be able to stand under the weight of reality - truth.

Take for example the fossil records - sure many distinguished evolution scientist and professors say that it proves evolution.

But when subjected under the microscope of honest review, it fails to live up to its claim.

In fact if proves creation more than evolution.

Why?

Because much of the conclusions are based on imagination and assumption - that is how/what it supposed to look like.

Rather than showing that truth that the fossil record contain and show unique creations - evolution scientist need to "bend" the truth in order to prop up an already weak theory.

They say (paraphrasing):

"We can't say for sure that it evolved that way because we haven't found the missing link 'yet'. But in any case - it happened because we have this transitional fossil".

"And oh - it happened because we have observed microevolution".

"If you don't believe this" they say, then you're an "idiot" an "ignorant moron".

Double, triple whammy.

Posted by: edmc2 | January 12, 2012 8:55 PM

@ Ampiox

Occasionally, a new mutation introduces a new variant, say E, into the population, which is usually neutral overall, but will have its own unique advantages and disadvantages relative to A, B, C, and D. E will then start to rise and fall in cycle as well. Since E is new and starts at zero, it will likely stay at a very low level in the population for quite some time. It may even be so low as to be undetectable, (especially likely in the fossil record). Meanwhile, other new variants, K, G, H, and I, get introduced over time and fluctuate at low levels as well. K might get eliminated by genetic drift, and might reappear later with a new mutation.

Does this mean then that species A is a new species when compared to species H?

A) Like a fish evolving into an amphibian into mammal?

B) Or is it more like a white moth adapting to its environment by varying its color?

C) Or like a finch with shorter beak rather that longer beak to adapt to its circumstance and environment?

I know B and C are facts (they were created that way) but can you cite real examples of A?

Because from what I understand about mutation - majority of it is detrimental to the carrier and the offspring if it ends up carrying the mutated gene becomes weaker than its progenitor.

And as a result - dies off.

Then there's the checks and balances present in all genes - a self-correcting gene that prevents mutations from happening.

So in order for mutations to be successful - such genes must be overcome or non-functional. If this is the case then mutation should be norm not the exception.

But is it?

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 12, 2012 9:03 PM

If this is the case then mutation should be norm not the exception.

But is it?

Yes.

There are about 100 mutations -- on average -- between you and your parents.

You are a mutant. Everyone is a mutant.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 12, 2012 9:22 PM

Still waiting for your conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity/creator edmc2. It isn't a deity of the gaps. You need the equivalent of an eternally burning bush to demonstrate its existence. And the evidence, from you??? Squat, zero, zip, nil, null, void. NOTHING. That is why creationists are liars and bullshitters. No deity, no creation.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 12, 2012 9:47 PM

Can you show me an example of a (living) CELL coming from a non-living material.

Every cell that there is is made of non-living material, and grows (large enough to divide) by metabolizing non-living material.

OK - transitional link if you prefer - you know from fish to amphibian, etc..

What's the difference between a "transitional link" and a "transitional fossil"?

It's necessary because I say so - just kidding

You're a complete moron.

that's the claim by evolutionits.

Which ones? Where?

True because God created Life that way!

Oh? You have pictures of God, and of God making life? Or maybe God told you so himself, but for some strange reason won't tell biologists?

Come off it. You're completely full of shit.

But can Life spontaneously generate from non-living materials?

Until you can prove that abiogenesis is impossible, the reasonable inference is that it can happen and has happened.

Unless of course God breath life into them?

What does that even mean?

You know life force?

What life force?

I can equally say that the fossil records show evidence of unique creation due to the "gaps - missing link" separating them.

You cannot equally say that. You can only say that because you're completely full of shit.

Oh, and you suck at blockquotes. Use the Preview button so that you don't look like even more of a complete fucking idiot than you already are.

Posted by: edmc2 | January 12, 2012 11:32 PM

Exodus 33:11 -- And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

So which one is the lie?

Not a lie - you just don't know what you're reading.

Here let me help you:

Exd 3:2 (ASV) says:

"And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed."

So it was thru a representative an angel that Jehovah God spoke to Moses.

Why? because...

(Exodus 33:20) . . . "You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live."

next...

"The CELL is just one example of the billions of God's Creation." ---

Even the cells of parasites and disease-causing microbes?

Actually once the immune system is compromised a parasite can easily invade the body.

Notice:

Scientific American said:

“From before birth until death, the immune system is in a state of constant alert. A diverse array of molecules and cells . . . protects us against parasites and pathogens. Without those defenses, humans could not survive.”

But some parasites benefit their host - like parasites inside a cow's stomach.

But because of unhealthy living conditions and invasion of their natural habitat some parasites become "disease-causing microbes". Others become super bugs due to an ever powerful anti-viral vaccines/drugs.

Happily for Creation believers all diseases will be eradicated forever in the coming future.

“And no resident will say: “I am sick.” The people that are dwelling in [the land] will be those pardoned for their error.” (Isaiah 33:24)

Anyway - the defense mechanism in the cell is another proof of God's amazing creations.

p.s.

still getting used to the posting method. sorry missed up my post by clicking on submit instead of preview.

Posted by: edmc2 | January 13, 2012 12:08 AM

Yes.

There are about 100 mutations -- on average -- between you and your parents.

You are a mutant. Everyone is a mutant.

In other words - no one is perfect.

Just like what the scripture say:

Rom 5:12 ASV - "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned".

Because of disobedience our body has been compromised.

But in spite of the inherited imperfection - our body still have the ability to fight and ward off parasites and mutations.

And above all we're still humans not some kind of mutants as evolution portrays us to be.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 13, 2012 1:06 AM

Not a lie - you just don't know what you're reading.

Or rather, you lie about a lie even when the lie is shown directly to you.

So it was thru a representative an angel that Jehovah God spoke to Moses.

So Exodus 33:11 is a lie. God did not speak face to face with Moses. When you speak face-to-face, it means not using a representative.

Thanks for confirming that the bible contains lies, and isn't even consistent with itself.

======

Actually once the immune system is compromised a parasite can easily invade the body.

Parasites invade and bypass the immune system.

But some parasites benefit their host - like parasites inside a cow's stomach.

If microbes only benefit their host, they're not called parasites, ignorant moron. They're called symbiotes.

But because of unhealthy living conditions and invasion of their natural habitat some parasites become "disease-causing microbes"

You have no idea what you're talking about, you blithering moron. Disease-causing microbes are what make unhealthy living conditions unhealthy in the first place!

Happily for Creation believers all diseases will be eradicated forever in the coming future.

So you agree that God did make them in the first place? God hates us, and wants us to be sick.

hah! you want me to "prove that abiogenesis is impossible"?

easy - still an unproven theory.

That's not proof.

fact is no one has ever contradicted Dr. Louis Pasteur's findings

Pasteur did not prove that abiogenesis is impossible.

He proved that complex life will not spontaneously generate in boiled beef broth kept at room temperature in stable conditions.

That is that Life can only come from life.

Obviously false.

so for abiogenesis how can anyone prove something to be true if it's not true and the facts don't support it?

Except that the facts do support it. Life is made of nonliving elements.

I guess one must bend the truth to conform to a lie.

It's true that you're a truth-bending liar. Just like whoever wrote the bible.

======

In other words - no one is perfect.

For pity's sake. We're talking about genetics. There is no perfect!

Because of disobedience our body has been compromised.

No, we are all mutants because genes mutate with every generation!

And above all we're still humans not some kind of mutants as evolution portrays us to be.

We are humans and we are all mutants, exactly as evolution portrays!

Just look at you, bending truth to conform to a lie!

======

He said His invisible attributes.
What are these attributes?
1) Love
2) Wisdom
3) Justice
4) Power.

These are not attributes of God, because God does not demonstrate them. They are not clearly seen.

God does not demonstrate love.
God does not demonstrate wisdom.
God does not demonstrate justice.
God does not demonstrate power.

Paul was full of shit, and so are you.

Can we see God's INVISIBLE attributes in the CELL that he created?

I do.

You're a moron who bends truth to conform to a lie, so what you see is your bending truth.

The CELL itself is an expression of God's love.

Love does not mean causing painful diseases, like some cells do. So cells cannot be an expression of love.

In fact the cell as microbiologist admit (and I agree) is a complex and dynamic system (wisdom).

Cells evolved. There is no wisdom in evolution -- just ruthless pruning of every organism that fails to survive.

The defense and repair mechanism as well as the checks and balances present in the cell shows God's justice.

That's not "justice". That's what happens when multi-celled organisms evolve in a world full of microbes and parasites that try to take over the organism's body. An immune system evolves, because those that didn't evolve an immune system died out from the microbes that killed them.

He created the CELL perfect

What does "perfect" even mean?

- not to die off in order to enjoy life.

Look up "apoptosis". Many cells are programmed to die. Cell death happens all the time!

It takes powerful instruments just to study the CELL but to produce it, only God has the power, the wisdom to create it.

There's no evidence God exists.

There's certainly no evidence that God has wisdom, or created anything.

But to a "moron" these things are truly invisible.

You're an ignorant moron who pretends that lies are true, because you hate truth and love lies.

Truth is invisible to you.

Posted by: edmc2 | January 13, 2012 2:08 AM

So Exodus 33:11 is a lie. God did not speak face to face with Moses. When you speak face-to-face, it means not using a representative.

Thanks for confirming that the bible contains lies, and isn't even consistent with itself.

Owl your so confused.

If the ambassador of the United States was sent to another country to deliver the President's message "face to face", who do you think is speaking?

jezz... even a figure of speech is not clear to you?

Posted by: edmc2 | January 13, 2012 2:29 AM

@owl

You're an ignorant moron who pretends that lies are true, because you hate truth and love lies.

To the contrary - I'm here to tell the truth and expose the lie.

For example you were taught that life can come from non-living things.

Is this truth or plain lie to you?

To me it's a lie and I have scientific evidence to back me up.

How about you?

Posted by: edmc2 | January 13, 2012 2:48 AM

@Owl

But some parasites benefit their host - like parasites inside a cow's stomach.

If microbes only benefit their host, they're not called parasites, ignorant moron. They're called symbiotes.

Here u go:

Parasite-

"Parasitism

Main article: Parasitism

Flea bites on a human is an example of parasitism.

A parasitic relationship is one in which one member of the association benefits while the other is harmed.[21] Parasitic symbioses take many forms, from endoparasites that live within the host's body to ectoparasites that live on its surface. In addition, parasites may be necrotrophic, which is to say they kill their host, or biotrophic, meaning they rely on their host's surviving. Biotrophic parasitism is an extremely successful mode of life. Depending on the definition used, as many as half of all animals have at least one parasitic phase in their life cycles, and it is also frequent in plants and fungi. Moreover, almost all free-living animals are host to one or more parasite taxa. An example of a biotrophic relationship would be a tick feeding on the blood of its host."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 13, 2012 3:02 AM

Here u go:

What are you blithering about? Did you even bother to read the paragraph on mutualism, moron?

Mutualism is any relationship between individuals of different species where both individuals derive a benefit.[13] In general, only lifelong interactions involving close physical and biochemical contact can properly be considered symbiotic. Mutualistic relationships may be either obligate for both species, obligate for one but facultative for the other, or facultative for both. Many biologists restrict the definition of symbiosis to close mutualist relationships.

A large percentage of herbivores have mutualistic gut fauna that help them digest plant matter, which is more difficult to digest than animal prey

Mutualism is exactly what you were calling parasitism.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 13, 2012 7:31 AM

I see edmc2 is still lying about his imaginary deity existing and his book of mythology/fiction being inerrant. Since his whole approach is based on those fallacious presuppositions, he has nothing evidential to offer us. He is just repeating the same invalid arguments as every other creobot, just trying to create confusion where none exists in the minds of real thinkers and scientists. Unoriginal thinking, unoriginal approach, same presuppositional and unevidenced nonsense. Boring, inane, insipid, and unintelligent lies and bullshit is all he offers.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 13, 2012 12:16 PM

The latter just doesn't work as a grammatically exact translation. I mean, I can understand how you could get to it, as an exegetical summary or rephrasing, but the grammar just doesn't match.

Maybe this will explain, since the author gets down into a very close examination of the grammar. I'm not sure how the text will show up, but:

Ah. I don't understand all of it, but it helps. Thanks!

have you heard of Visible Speech?

Yes.

But there's one thing I do see - since "abiogenesis" is still an unproven theory and since evolution theory is based on it then it's a baseless theory.

Firstly, prepare to be shocked: there is no such thing as a proven theory. Science cannot prove, only disprove.

Science can, however, make arguments from parsimony: when several ideas explain the evidence equally well, the one that requires the fewest extra assumptions must be preferred.

Every miracle is an extra assumption; and the existence of a god is a whole bundle of extra assumptions.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is in no way based on any hypothesis of abiogenesis. Evolution sets in once the first self-replicator exists; how that first self-replicator came to be is completely irrelevant to evolution.

Take for example the fossil records - sure many distinguished evolution scientist and professors say that it proves evolution.

But when subjected under the microscope of honest review, it fails to live up to its claim.

In fact if proves creation more than evolution.

Why?

Because much of the conclusions are based on imagination and assumption - that is how/what it supposed to look like.

Rather than showing that truth that the fossil record contain and show unique creations - evolution scientist need to "bend" the truth in order to prop up an already weak theory.

They say (paraphrasing):

"We can't say for sure that it evolved that way because we haven't found the missing link 'yet'. But in any case - it happened because we have this transitional fossil".

Dude...

I have a doctorate in that stuff (paleobiology). I can tell you what the fossil record shows when you look at it very closely indeed: it is exactly as predicted by the theory of evolution, and it doesn't fit creation at all.

If you plot the similarity of organisms, you find it forms a tree shape. Not a line, not a tape, not a ring, not a cross, not a star, but a tree. Why should that be? Well, guess what, the theory of evolution says we should find a tree shape.

Adding more and more fossils to this picture has not changed this. There are no fossils that float somewhere outside the tree; all are part of it.

In contrast, creationism can't explain a single champsosaur.

"And oh - it happened because we have observed microevolution".

To distinguish "microevolution" from "macroevolution" means to declare that it's impossible to walk a mile because... what? Is it impossible to walk more than 10 steps?

Does this mean then that species A is a new species when compared to species H?

Define "species".

This may sound silly if you don't know anything about this topic, but biologists have been trying to define "species" for a long time now and have, till February 2009 (the last time I checked), come up with 147 different definitions, each of them with its own advantages and disadvantages. Not all 147 definitions are in use today, but nonetheless different biologists use different definitions.

Depending on the definition, there are from 101 to 249 endemic bird species in Mexico. Yes, a factor of almost 2 1/2.

These different definitions describe different kinds of entities. Why should any particular one of them be called "species"?

Because from what I understand about mutation - majority of it is detrimental to the carrier and the offspring if it ends up carrying the mutated gene becomes weaker than its progenitor.

No. The vast majority of mutations is completely irrelevant and has no effect whatsoever. There are several reasons for this:
– Most DNA just lies around and does nothing. As long as it doesn't acquire promoters, enhancers, and start codons, any mutation in it is completely devoid of effects.
– When protein-coding DNA mutates, most of the mutations have no effect because most amino acids correspond to several different combinations of three nucleotides.
– When such a combination mutates in such a way that a different amino acid is coded for, it's usually a chemically similar amino acid that will make very little or no difference to the function of the protein the gene codes for.
– Also, most of a protein doesn't need to have any particular amino acid sequence. It just needs to have a certain approximate shape a certain approximate size. Even drastically different amino acids don't necessarily matter.
– One protein with a different function doesn't necessarily make a difference to the organism as a whole. Some proteins come in families of very similar or even functionally identical proteins, for instance.
– And that's before we get to such things as diploidy that make recessive mutations possible.

a self-correcting gene that prevents mutations from happening

No, there is no such thing. What there is is different:

– The enzyme that does most of the work in copying DNA has a proofreading function that can detect mistakes it just made, go back, cut them out, and try again.
– Mutations subtly distort the DNA double strand. So-called repair enzymes attach to such distortions, cut them out, and catch other enzymes that fill in the gap.

Both functions are not perfect; some mutations are not caught.

Zsostak

Why are you so fucking stupid as to make the exact same moronic spelling mistake after being corrected?

Are you brain[-]damaged or something?

Perhaps it helps if I explain what the correct spelling is supposed to mean: sz is the Polish way to write the "sh" sound.

There are about 100 mutations -- on average -- between you and your parents.

No, 100 is the minimum. The average is 150.

Just teasing you man. I know you're get a kick out of it.

Trolling is a bannable offense. You just admitted to it.

What "missing link"? Define what a missing link is, and why it's necessary to find one.

OK - transitional link if you prefer - you know from fish to amphibian, etc..

It's necessary because I say so - just kidding, that's the claim by evolutionits.

Dude, we have an entire transitional series for that one. A tree, in fact. Shortened: Eusthenopteron and friends, Gogonasus, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Tiktaalik, Elginerpeton, Jakubsonia, Ventastega, Metaxygnathus, Acanthostega, a new one that hasn't been named yet, Ichthyostega, Tulerpeton, Ossinodus, Occidens, Pederpes, Whatcheeria, Crassigyrinus, Deltaherpeton, Pholidogaster, Colosteus, Greererpeton, a whole bunch of baphetoids, Silvanerpeton, the moderately diverse embolomeres (at least some of which still had internal gills and a tail fin), Gephyrostegus, Bruktererpeton, the chroniosuchians...

You know life force?

The existence of such a thing was disproved 100 years ago. What have you been doing? Sleeping?

Of course based on assumptions because I can equally say that the fossil records show evidence of unique creation due to the "gaps - missing link" separating them.

The Incredible Shrinking God !!

Hiding in smaller and smaller gaps !! You already need a microscope to even see most of them !!

All your base are belong to us.

Anyway - the defense mechanism in the cell is another proof of God's amazing creations.

Wait, wait, wait. In the cell? There's almost nothing there, just restriction enzymes and the enzyme that shreds double-stranded RNA (which only helps against a few sorts of virus).

The immune systems of, say, vertebrates are organism-wide affairs; they're Rube Goldberg machines that have a couple of holes and aren't easy to keep from triggering autoimmune diseases.

hah! you want me to "prove that abiogenesis is impossible"?

easy - still an unproven theory.

none of the current lab experiments can and able to prove spontaneous generation/abiogenesis.

~:-|

And you call that a disproof?

Didn't you know that people get closer and closer to making life? Two links for you: Craig Venter's bacterium with the completely synthetic genome, a way to life that isn't carbon-based.

Because of disobedience our body has been compromised.

So? Ours? Why aren't the bodies of other living beings any better?

It's not just our DNA that falls apart when kept in water, so it must be constantly repaired, eating up a large part of our basic metabolism. This feature of Stupid Design is simply a chemical property of DNA. Why does all known life use DNA (or, if you include viruses, sometimes the even less stable RNA)? Why not PNA, for instance?

And above all we're still humans[,] not some kind of mutants as evolution portrays us to be.

You simply didn't know what "mutant" means.

In fact the cell as microbiologist admit (and I agree) is a complex and dynamic system (wisdom).

The defense and repair mechanism as well as the checks and balances present in the cell shows God's justice. He created the CELL perfect -

No. It's a Rube Goldberg machine, even if you spell it in all-caps.

There are only two possibilities:
1) Stupid Design;
2) evolution.
Tertium non datur.

Parasites invade and bypass the immune system.

Many of them actually secrete hormones that suppress it.

Like I said - how could there be records of the Jews/Hebrews in Egypt if they were treated with extreme prejudice - a possession. Not just a slave but in bondage for 300 years.

So why should the ruling class, their record record holders or even the common Egyptian be truthful about their low class slaves?

Do you find any reason for them to be honest?

Why should they lie about them?

In addition the Kings of Egypt themselves practiced these type of dishonesty. For example, King Horemheb changed inscriptions to credit himself for building work done by Tutankhamen. The Cairo Museum in Egypt and the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago contain numerous examples of such dishonesty.

So again what do you expect?

First, that we'd find evidence of such dishonesty, like we found evidence of Pharao Horemheb's dishonesty and Pharao Thutmose III's dishonesty.

Second, that we'd find archeological evidence of the presence and then sudden disappearance of all those people. Where are the foundations of their huts, their fireplaces, the stuff they built? What happened to the building industry when they left?

Third, that we'd find archeological evidence of the plagues. Where is the fucking frog bonebed? Where is it? Where is the collapse of society that cannot help happening when most of the army dies and every firstborn son dies? Where?

Have you never thought about these issues?

But the strongest proof that the Israelites were in Egypt are the writings of Moses themselves.

Why?

because when compared and verified against geographic and geologic locations they are accurate.

For crying out loud. Most fiction is set in really existing locations.

Facts:

--> Egypt is rich with grain lands, its Nile River edged with reeds.

Compare with (Genesis 41:47-49)

I am deeply astonished that anybody could possibly be astounded at people knowing what Egypt looks like.

This goes twice for people whose countries belonged to Egypt most of the time. Hey, even in the Bible, in 2 Kings, we read of Pharao Necho deposing a king of Israel and imposing a new one, with nobody so much as complaining. Things varied over the centuries, but often the northern border of Egypt was in northern Syria.

I've heard many scary stories about the state of geography education in the USA. But believing it's a miracle that anybody knows what Egypt looks like... *headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*

If the ambassador of the United States was sent to another country to deliver the President's message "face to face", who do you think is speaking?

You wouldn't describe this situation as the POTUS speaking face-to-face to anyone, liar.

And you definitely wouldn't describe it as the POTUS saying "I shall remove mine 'and, so thou mayest see my back parts".

Look up "apoptosis". Many cells are programmed to die. Cell death happens all the time!

look up telomeres and see why the cells die.

No, telomere exhaustion is a very rare case of cell death. Apoptosis is something completely different. Look it the fuck up.

BTW, both telomeres and apoptosis only occur in eukaryotes. Bacteria and archaea lack it.

Should not be happening according to microbiologist - so the quest for a cure - reverse the aging process.

Imagine if they find the "key" to halt/stop the shortening of the telomeres?

Well, what would happen?

Cancer.

Cancer happens, sooner or later, when a cell has a mutation that switches the telomere-lengthening enzyme on for too long or too often.

Telomeres are a stupid compromise. Telomeres too short? Cell dies prematurely. Telomeres too long? Cell can divide indefinitely, and will divide indefinitely if all the other pathetic security mechanisms fail.

The enzyme that lengthens telomeres has been known for quite some time. It's called telomerase (unsurprisingly). In multicellular organisms, its production is only switched on in germline cells, so the next generation can start with full-length telomeres again. Switching its production on elsewhere is dangerous; finding a way to do so is one feature that unites all cancer cells.

Really, I don't understand why you keep talking about things about which you know so little.

What are you blithering about? Did you even bother to read the paragraph on mutualism, moron?

He did – and he failed to notice that it's a different topic.

Posted by: edmc2 | January 13, 2012 12:38 PM

@ Owl.

You're lying about it being a lie, and you're lying about having scientific evidence about anything at all. Liar.

You remind me of a 3rd grader who keeps saying -liar, liar pants on fire - is that all you can say?

I hope not.

If not then back up your claim that:

It's a FACT that life can come from non-living things, because life is MADE OF non-living things.

Or else you'll be proven to be the very person you're claiming that I am - a liar.

But just to let you know - fact is we are made of the elements found in the stars and on the earth, but it does not make them living breathing things.

So again, so as not to embarrass yourself further - please show me scientific evidence based on experiments or whatever evidence you have that:

life can come from non-living things

Because like I said - based on scientific experiments and factual evidence:

Life can only come from life - life begets life

On this alone, I'm on solid ground.

What about you?

Do you agree with me that it's a lie to say

life can come from non-living things

Just like Santa Clause is a lie.
Just like hellfire is a lie.
Just like an immortal soul is a lie.
Just like spontaneous generation is a lie.
Just like organic evolution is a lie.

I'll stay on this subject as long as I can in order to find out whether you can back up your claim.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 13, 2012 12:50 PM

Do you agree with me that it's a lie to say

life can come from non-living things

I don't, I've explained why, and you have failed to read that. Scroll up! I'm talking about comment 157. Follow the links in there.

Posted by: Nightjar | January 13, 2012 1:15 PM

I'm talking about comment 157. Follow the links in there.

156, you mean. And edmc2 should indeed follow the links. This is simply awesome:

The team has also made bubbles within bubbles (see images), creating compartments that mimic the internal structure of biological cells. Better yet, they have started imbuing the iCHELLs with the equipment for photosynthesis by linking some oxide molecules to light-sensitive dyes. Cronin says early results suggest he can create a membrane that splits water into hydrogen ions, electrons and oxygen when illuminated – the initial step of photosynthesis.

"We've [also] got an indication that we can pump protons across the membrane" to set up a proton gradient, says Cronin – another key stage in harnessing energy from light. If he can assemble all these steps, Cronin could create a self-powered cell with elements of plant-like metabolism.

Posted by: edmc2 | January 13, 2012 2:01 PM

@Nightjar

And edmc2 should indeed follow the links. This is simply awesome:

Would amazing if they can NOW transform this

so called "inorganic materials" into a living thing.

But as the article says this "Life-like cells are made of metal".

If they are able to this imagine the implication but as it is, it is still a pipe dream.

What are the chances though of a "Life-like cells ... made of metal" becoming a breathing Life form?

I say not in million billion years because of the fact that:

Life can only be created from a pre-existing life.

Unless of course you are God.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 13, 2012 2:10 PM

Just like Santa Clause my deity is a lie.

Unless of course you are God.

Posted by: edmc2 | January 13, 2012 2:27 PM

@Nigthjar

An isolated molecule of DNA is not a living thing.

Fact is they started the experiment from a pre-existing life-form (Mycoplasma genitalium) - synthesize (modified) it then introduced it into another pre-existing life form (stripped of DNA).

The challenge is to create a life form the basic ingredients of life - from scratch as abiogenesis states it to be.

If they are able to do this - then the theory is correct - else it's just a "cute" hypothesis.

Why do you keep referring to living breathing things? That's just weird.

I'm just being super accurate.

Posted by: Nightjar | January 13, 2012 2:43 PM

Would amazing if they can NOW transform this so called "inorganic materials" into a living thing.

Yes, that would be amazing. But what they did is already quite amazing. Isn't it?

What are the chances though of a "Life-like cells ... made of metal" becoming a breathing Life form?

I have no idea about living, but breathing is definitely unlikely.

*eyeroll*

Life can only be created from a pre-existing life.

Unless of course you are God.

Why?

sadly they are all just that - a "hypothesis".

just like abiogenesis or spontaneous generation.

Yes, they are just hypotheses (btw, notice how the plural of "hypothesis" is spelled). So what? You don't even have that. "Goddidit" does not deserve to be called a scientific hypothesis.

Oh, and they are not hypothesis "just like" abiogenesis is a hypothesis. They are hypothesis to explain abiogenesis.

You really are a confused person.

So based on "iCHELLs" experiment - do you think that "exogenesis" is the like explanation of the origin of life (besides Creation)?

I don't know what you're blathering on about. I said nothing about exogenesis.

The challenge is to create a life form the basic ingredients of life

Yes, and? Did you read the last paragraph of the post you just quoted? All I'm saying is that we have shown that there is nothing magical about life, so there's no reason to invoke a miracle to explain it. Why is this so hard to understand?

Why do you keep referring to living breathing things? That's just weird.

I'm just being super accurate.

What? Accurate? I thought you were going to say you were just using an unusual definition of "breathing".

I mean, you are aware that not all living things breathe, aren't you?

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 13, 2012 2:55 PM

If not then back up your claim that:

It's a FACT that life can come from non-living things, because life is MADE OF non-living things.

I did, @#108 above. Here, I'll repeat it:

Life does come from non-living materials. Plants take in carbon dioxide and water (which are not alive), and use the energy from the sun to make the chemicals that they use to grow. The plants are killed -- they become non-living -- and the chemicals that they made are taken in by us (and other animals), and combined with oxygen, and we use those chemicals to grow.

But just to let you know - fact is we are made of the elements found in the stars and on the earth, but it does not make them living breathing things.

No-one says that they are. But the point remains that metabolism, growth, and reproduction all involve life being made of non-living elements, and taking in the non-living elements and incorporating them as life.

The problem is that your stupid assertion is so badly worded that it can mean different things. What exactly does "come from" mean?

Living things are made of cells, or are cells themselves. Cells result from the division of prior existing cells.

Maybe you wanted to write: "Cells can only result from prior existing cells", but that STILL means that God is a violation of that! So the statement cannot possibly be an absolute universal rule, regardless of whether you believe Goddidit, or hypothesize abiogenesis.

Which is what we've been trying to tell you multiple times.

Are you really so stupid that you cannot understand that simple point?

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 13, 2012 3:21 PM

just like abiogenesis or spontaneous generation.

Those are not equivalent terms. All what are in that you posted list are abiogenesis hypotheses.

Rephrasing my question from above:

If one the of abiogenesis hypotheses is proved conclusively; if it is shown that life arose as an organic chemical reaction, and exactly what that organic chemical reaction was, would you shut up about God?

Would you become an atheist?

Why do you keep referring to living breathing things? That's just weird.

I'm just being super accurate.

Super stupid, rather.

So... what about plants, bacteria, fungi, and archaea? Anything that isn't an animal with lungs or gills or spiracles? They don't count?

How about the cells of animals themselves? They don't "breathe".

Posted by: Nightjar | January 13, 2012 5:54 PM

Yet inspite of the technological advances - we're not even close in proving abiogenesis.

I'm going to assume that by "proving abiogenesis" you mean creating life in the lab. Well, we have already synthesized molecules capable of self-replication with variation, and once you have that Darwinian evolution could do the rest. I think we're making progress, though we're definitely not there yet.

So what? That life arose here on Earth as a chemical reaction seems to be the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of life. We don't know the details, but if there's something we're far from is concluding that it's impossible, as you keep saying. I was going to ask if you have a better explanation, but I already know what you will say and, no, that's not better. God is an unnecessary assumption.

(Also, you completely missed the point of my "simply awesome" statement. I wasn't saying anything about the implications of Cronin's work for abiogenesis or for the existence of very different kinds of life elsewhere in the Universe. I was merely expressing amazement at the fact that they managed to make those membranes split water when illuminated and may be able to set up a proton gradient. And they're trying to come up with a way of combining the two! That's, like, the first stage of oxygenic photosynthesis right there! In cell-like bubbles made of inorganic materials! Maybe it's just me, but I think that's awesome even if it has nothing to do with how life got started here on Earth.)

I have no idea about living, but breathing is definitely unlikely.

See what I mean - even that is not precise enuff.

No, I don't see what you mean. You're not making any sense.

You should read the Cronin article again because it mentions the theory (of exogenesis).

I have, and it doesn't.

cuz the ones you et al provided only confirmed what I've been saying - that Life can only be created from pre-existing life.

They confirm no such thing.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 13, 2012 6:56 PM

@David Marjanović:

there is no such thing as a proven theory. Science cannot prove, only disprove.

The last time it came up, this was argued with, here (that's your last comment -- KG and Circe posted further down).

I think that the wording, as you have it, is simply confusing, especially to laypersons. Maybe make it a little longer?

How about: "Science cannot prove that theories are completely true, it can only disprove the ones that are definitely false."

Or something like that.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 13, 2012 7:27 PM

How about: "Science cannot prove that theories are completely true, it can only disprove the ones that are definitely false."

I'm not sure I even understand this one.

I find I'm just a bit too tired to think about this topic now, so I'll comment on this tomorrow.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | January 13, 2012 9:33 PM

I was merely expressing amazement at the fact that they managed to make those membranes split water when illuminated and may be able to set up a proton gradient. And they're trying to come up with a way of combining the two! That's, like, the first stage of oxygenic photosynthesis right there! In cell-like bubbles made of inorganic materials! Maybe it's just me, but I think that's awesome even if it has nothing to do with how life got started here on Earth.

The implications for clean energy production being just one of the many awesome things about it.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 13, 2012 10:12 PM

How about: "Science cannot prove that theories are completely true, it can only disprove the ones that are definitely false."

More than that. Science can render an estimation of how likely, in hard, quantifiable, numbers, a theory is to be true, or false.

I infer that you're referring to Bayesianism?

I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible to get the point across to laypersons with no background in science, and very little math.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 14, 2012 3:27 AM

"organic chemical reaction" - ru referring to chemical evolution? [...snip...]
Is this the evolution theory ur talking about?

Not necessarily. I mean something that definitely actually does go from simple chemicals to sustained metabolism and replication. Photosynthesis is extra. Not all life is photosynthetic, so you don't get photosynthesis right away.

If so, could a simple cell really produce and sustain itself in this way?

I am asking about a scenario in which it is shown that it does.

From what I read and know - I don't think so, because even the finest scientists today will admit humbly that they cannot even duplicate photosynthesis.

You're not answering the question that I asked. Scientists today will also admit that they cannot yet show the chemical origin of life; they are working on the problem.

I am asking you about what you will do if they succeed in showing the chemical origin of life.

Which leads me again to this question - can life come from/be created from/produced from/spontaneously generated from inanimate things -i.e. organic chemicals?  
Again that facts says NO.

WRONG. The facts say that the chemical reaction that gave rise to life has not yet been shown.

The facts DO NOT say that it is impossible to show some chemical reaction that will give rise to life.

Because Life can only come from/created from/sprang from - existing life.

WRONG. This cannot possibly be a universal rule. It doesn't matter what you change the wording to.

Life is composed of organic compounds (carbohydrates, lipids, protein, and nucleic acids, etc)- the stuff that are on the earth (even the stars) so i don't see your point about not believing in God as the Creator.

What are you blithering about? The one has nothing to do with the other!

I don't believe in God because there is no evidence of God! God doesn't talk! God doesn't do anything! God doesn't leave any sign of existing!

Sheesh.

In other words - if there's no Creator, can life arise by itself?
Like I said - facts don't support it and neither any of the (different) abiogenesis hypotheses' can.

The facts DO support it.

Answer the question:

If one the of abiogenesis hypotheses is proved conclusively; if it is shown that life arose as an organic chemical reaction, and exactly what that organic chemical reaction was, would you shut up about God?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | January 14, 2012 11:22 AM

edmc2 is trying to weasel out of answering the question: "If abiogensis is done in the lab, will you admit gods are unnecessary for life to exist?" Like many goddists, he lacks the moral courage and intellectual honesty to accept the possibility that his favorite pet deity is nonessential.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | January 14, 2012 1:11 PM

So the issue is not what makes up man but this: Can life spontaneously generate/arose from non-living substance/materials - without a Creator?

NO.

The issue is "Does a Creator even exist?"

Until you can actually demonstrate the existence of something, you cannot attribute to it any agency.

In other words - if there's no Creator, can life arise by itself?

Again, wrong question.

Life EXISTS. We know for certain that it exists.

A creator on the other hand, is unconfirmed. There is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing exists.

Therefore, because we KNOW life exists, and we have NO EVIDENCE that a creator exists, life AROSE BY ITSELF BY DEFAULT, unless evidence is found to demonstrate otherwise.

No such evidence has yet been found.

Life arising by itself is the standing null hypothesis.

Which leads me again to this question - can life come from/be created from/produced from/spontaneously generated from inanimate things -i.e. organic chemicals? Again that facts says NO.

No, the facts say YES.

The facts say that every single individual step needed in the sequence from organic chemicals to living beings can and does occur spontaneously.

The facts further show that there is no universal law that definitely PREVENTS that sequence of individual steps, ALL of which have been shown to be individually possible, from occurring together. (Unlike say, for example, a perpetual motion machine*, for which the facts DO in fact say no.)

Just because it hasn't yet been observed or duplicated DOES NOT MEAN that the "facts" say no. It only means that we don't yet know the precise details of how it occurred.

For the facts to say "no" on any question of possibility, the facts must demonstrate that it actually cannot occur by any conceivable mechanism, or that there is something that actively prevents it from occurring.

For abiogenesis this is decided not the case.

The facts clearly say YES.

*Incidentally, a creator god would be an example of a perpetual motion machine. Thus, on the question of the existence of such an entity, the facts currently, quite definitely, say NO.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 14, 2012 2:41 PM

I've looked at the science theory stuff. I should have restricted my claim to explanations (hypotheses/theories). It doesn't apply to mere fact claims, like the general roundness of the Earth or cell "theory" or germ "theory".

I agree with you, Owlmirror, on the profound asymmetry of "proof of A" and "proof of ¬ A"; if science can prove a positive within methodological naturalism, then only by elimination of all alternatives, and good luck proving you've considered all alternatives. ...So much for "you can't prove a negative"; in some ways, that's the only thing you can prove.

Mathematical proofs in physics are great. I keep throwing Bell's theorem at people who still believe they can argue for hidden variables. But it cannot be simply assumed that any particular math applies to reality; that has to be tested empirically. Bell's theorem assumes that quantum physics is correct – a pretty safe assumption, given the famous correlation between quantum electrodynamics and observation, but not the same thing as just proving something within mathematics.

Posted by: Nightjar | January 14, 2012 4:12 PM

There are organisms that use other stuff, like sulfur, sulfate, nitrate, carbon dioxide*...

Or metal ions, like ferric iron. Some bacteria (in the genus Geobacter, most notably) can even use uranium(VI) at the end of their electron transport chain and reduce it to uranium(IV).

And then you also have to consider where the electrons transported by the respiratory chain come from, and it's not always from organic molecules like glucose either. Among the lithotrophs we find organisms capable of oxidizing stuff like sulphur, ammonia, nitrite, ferrous iron, carbon monoxide (to carbon dioxide), hydrogen (to water)... to obtain energy.

The metabolic diversity found among the microbes is really quite amazing. They can do pretty much anything.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 15, 2012 2:48 AM

Ammonia falls apart when the sun shines (more precisely, when UV radiation hits it), and to a lesser extent so does methane. The Earth's first atmosphere must have been a normal one for a terrestrial planet – nitrogen, lots of carbon dioxide, and traces of other stuff, but much more water vapor than seen today on Venus or Mars, plus a high-altitude haze of large organic molecules (derived from partial UV-caused destruction of methane) much like seen today on Titan.

I've been skimming origin-of-life papers, including the one that describes finding more amino acids in the Urey-Miller results than could be found with equipment from that era. While they acknowledge that the Earth's atmosphere in general is now understood as you wrote, it's posited that volcanic eruptions and their consequent plumes would have provided a mix of reducing gases (along with volcanic lightning), that would leave some room for the Urey-Miller scenario to still be relevant.

I'm not overly committed to that particular scenario anyway, but I thought I'd get that out there.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 15, 2012 9:56 AM

If it accepts or donates electrons, and it exists in water solution within the range of temperatures found on planet earth, it's a safe bet that somewhere there's some microbe using it for energy....

Yes. And even if it's not soluble, it can still be used in some cases. There are bacteria that attach themselves to iron(III) oxide crystals and dump electrons on them, and there are some that attach themselves to iron (ships, say) and draw electrons out.

it's posited that volcanic eruptions and their consequent plumes would have provided a mix of reducing gases (along with volcanic lightning)

Huh. Interesting. Yes, possible.

The lesson of the Urey-Miller experiment is that it's not difficult to get amino acids and other "building blocks of life" assembled. All that's needed is some very simple chemicals and an energy source.

I didn't even want to go into this, because at least the simpler amino acids and comparable molecules occur even in comets and stuff. The step that edmc2 should be asking for isn't how to get from five molecules of hydrocyanic acid to adenine but how to get from there to the first self-replicating ribozyme.