Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Questions for creationists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Now I am going to go over breifly the apparent conflict in the Gensis chapter 2. The information provided here may seem to contridict what was just said in the preivous chpater. The fact is that Gensis chapter 2 is merely providing more detailed information about the creation account that was omited form the first chapter. Genesis 2:5 start out form the thrid creative day and then ends at the sixth creative day. It is basicly a parrall account of the creation of the earth.
    Donate to the American Red Cross.
    Computer Science or Engineering Student? Compete in the Microsoft Imagine Cup today!.

    Comment


    • I would like to now focus on scientific evidence that life here on earth was created, and it not happen about by chance. According many evolutionists the early atmosphere of the earth consisted of methane, ammonia, water and carbon dioxide. Through varrious forms of energy form the sun, volcanoes, and lightning that the these chemicals were broken down and then form amino acids and they went into the sea were they formed a chemical soup of organic componds. Many evolutionist hold that after some period of time, be accendent that a molecule that could reproduce formed. After this happen for some time simular molecules grouped to gather and formed a protective membrane of protein molecules around themselves.
      (If you feel above information is wrong feel free to point out what I got wrong, I am willing to admit my mistakes.)

      The question is could a cell spontaneous generate form non living matter?

      The idea of spontaneous generation of life has been around a long time. In the middle ages people believed that flies and rats spontaneous generated from piles of garbed and rotting meat. Many of you are no doubt are aware of the experiment by Francesco Redi, an Italian physcian. He proved that magets only apeared on meat that flies could get to, but not on the meat that the flies could not get to. After this though many people still believed that micoscopic organisms spontaneous generated on meat and other things. Many of you are most likely aware of the experiments that Lewis Pasteur on weather or not microscopic forms of life could spontaneously generate. He was able to prove with his experiments that this was not the case. And to date no lab experiment has been able to spontanously generate singled cell life or other microscopic forms of life.
      So we now that life does not spontaneously generates, and that life can only come form preexisting life. But could this have been possible in the past, billions of years ago?

      Many who support evolution will point to the famous experiment that was proformed by Stanley Miller in 1953, and say that this shows that life was able to spontaneous generate in the past.
      Miller assumed that the primitive atmosphere had to be free of chemically uncombined oxygen, because if there was oxygen was present it would quickly decompose any amino acids that were formed. Miller got a sealed flask with hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and boiling water. He sent a electric sparks through the mixture of gasses inside the flask and in a weeks time got many amino acids, the bluiding blocks of life.

      First question that rises with this is, was the early atmosphere of the earth really like this?
      Two years afte Miller conducted his experiment he said "These ideas are of course specculation, for we don not know the Earth has a reducing atmosphere when it was formed . . . No direct evidence has yet been found."
      -Journal of the American Chemical Sciety, May 12, 1955.

      As of yet no conculsive proof has been found to prove that this was the case for the early atmosphere of the earth. But there is anther problem with this. Recent computer models of such an atmosphere inidcate that if such an atmosphere lacked oxygen that ultraviolet radiation, that is currently blocked by the ozone layer would quickly destroyed any amino acids that were formed. But as was stated that if oxygen was present that these amino acids would never have been able to be formed.

      Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
      I will post more evidence I have latter.
      Donate to the American Red Cross.
      Computer Science or Engineering Student? Compete in the Microsoft Imagine Cup today!.

      Comment


      • http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/engli...000/217054.stm creationist explanations, any one?

        Jack_www, the way you put that early atmosphere theory does sound like circular reasoning. However, I have never read such a version of it. I have to find out more about it.
        "A witty saying proves nothing."
        - Voltaire (1694-1778)

        Comment


        • Vagrant I read parts of the article that you have a link to. I would like to point out, as of yet no one has been able to spontanously generate singled cell life or other microscopic forms of life. I am going to try and find the info, the article said it is in Nature, so I will try an look up there research. I cannot really says anymore about it because the info on the experiment is not very detailed. Thanks for the info though. Since this was published 4 years ago I wonder if they have progressed any futher in their rescearch.
          Donate to the American Red Cross.
          Computer Science or Engineering Student? Compete in the Microsoft Imagine Cup today!.

          Comment


          • Jack, I can't send you private messages! Check your control panel, please!
            "BANANA POWAAAAH!!! (exclamation Zopperoni style)" - Mercator, in the OT 'What fruit are you?' thread
            Join the Civ2 Democratic Game! We have a banana option in every poll just for you to vote for!
            Many thanks to Zealot for wasting his time on the jobs section at Gamasutra - MarkG in the article SMAC2 IN FULL 3D? http://apolyton.net/misc/
            Always thought settlers looked like Viking helmets. Took me a while to spot they were supposed to be wagons. - The pirate about Settlers in Civ 1

            Comment


            • Zealot, if you want to send me a pm, I have now enabled them, so you sould be able to send me a pm.
              Donate to the American Red Cross.
              Computer Science or Engineering Student? Compete in the Microsoft Imagine Cup today!.

              Comment


              • Vagrant I went to the website for Nature and could not find the issue that contained the info about the self reproducing mocules. Do you know what issue of Nature it might be in??
                Donate to the American Red Cross.
                Computer Science or Engineering Student? Compete in the Microsoft Imagine Cup today!.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jack_www
                  According many evolutionists the early atmosphere of the earth consisted of methane, ammonia, water and carbon dioxide.
                  That would be geologists. They might happen to be evolutionists, but what they hold in terms of this area is not significant.

                  The best evidence for this is look at the gas coming out from volcanic vents. That should resemble what primodial atmosphere was like.

                  Originally posted by Jack_www
                  The question is could a cell spontaneous generate form non living matter?
                  How is that required given the current hypothesis in abiogenesis, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. If you want to look at the facts, fine, make sure you have the most basic rights one before you proceed.

                  Originally posted by Jack_www
                  So we now that life does not spontaneously generates, and that life can only come form preexisting life. But could this have been possible in the past, billions of years ago?
                  What does that have to do with evolution?

                  Originally posted by Jack_www
                  Many who support evolution will point to the famous experiment that was proformed by Stanley Miller in 1953, and say that this shows that life was able to spontaneous generate in the past.
                  Spontaneous generation is not the same as abiogenesis. If you look at what the discarded hypothesis of spontaneous generation, you'll find it different from abiogenesis.

                  Originally posted by Jack_www
                  Miller assumed that the primitive atmosphere had to be free of chemically uncombined oxygen, because if there was oxygen was present it would quickly decompose any amino acids that were formed.
                  I strongly doubt that that Miller made that assumption. How is the presence of oxygen will quickly decompose amino acids? Can you suggest a mechanism of how that occurs, and how does that reconcile with the fact that there is life on earth? Afterall, all life on earth are based on protein, which are just amino acids concatenated together.

                  Originally posted by Jack_www
                  First question that rises with this is, was the early atmosphere of the earth really like this?
                  See my reply above. Another good reason is Venus. Venus has an atmosphere that has similar compostion to the earth's early atmosphere.

                  Originally posted by Jack_www
                  Two years afte Miller conducted his experiment he said "These ideas are of course specculation, for we don not know the Earth has a reducing atmosphere when it was formed . . . No direct evidence has yet been found."
                  -Journal of the American Chemical Sciety, May 12, 1955.
                  IIRC, lots of evidence has been found since 1955. You are using a quote from 1955? What is the assumption here? That science has not progressed for, what, 45 years?

                  See, for example, this

                  Originally posted by Jack_www
                  But there is anther problem with this. Recent computer models of such an atmosphere inidcate that if such an atmosphere lacked oxygen that ultraviolet radiation, that is currently blocked by the ozone layer would quickly destroyed any amino acids that were formed. But as was stated that if oxygen was present that these amino acids would never have been able to be formed.
                  Source?

                  The problems with computer models is of course with their assumptions. Computer models don't lie, humans do.

                  Water also absorbs UV ray. That's why there's no life on land until the ozone layer was sufficiently thick.
                  (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                  (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                  (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                  Comment


                  • Is/are there any scientific evidence to support creationists' claims about the Creation, the Biblical Flood, Noah's Arc, fast ice age, young Earth and all the rest? Haven't found any. Still looking. Bye...
                    "A witty saying proves nothing."
                    - Voltaire (1694-1778)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jack_www

                      I with Jehovah time does really matter to Him, He has all the time he could possibly want. Maybe he could create the earth in 7 days, but the Bible does not tells us that, refer to my post above.
                      It says six days and its pretty clear. However at least you can see that six days is not at all right and are trying to deal with reality.

                      Jehovah may not treat time as we do however the book was not written for Jehovah. If the authors didn't mean days then the authors aren't people that can be depended on for accurate reporting. So the rest must also be treated similarly. That is, it can not be trusted and there is no reason to call it the word of god.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jack_www
                        I will now go over the Gensis Creation account.

                        First Day- Gensis 1:1-5
                        Here the Bible states that the earth was already in existence for quite some time and was orbitting the Sun already.
                        Nice adding. It doesn't say that. It says the earth was without form and void. Things that don't exist are without form. A vacuum is a void. It does mention waters though. I guess that is where you are getting that.

                        It says that the earth was covered with water and that light apeared on the suface of the earth and a division between light and darkness had appeared.
                        It doesn't say the earth was covered with water. It doesn't say the light apeared on the surface of the earth. Just that there was light and it was divided form darkness.

                        A translation of the Bible by J.W. Watts says this, "God Proceed to say, 'Let there be light.'; and gradually light came inot existence." (Gensis 1:3).
                        Which is a peculiar translation not based on anything in the Hebrew. Its an invention of his own. It could be the author meant it that way but it isn't in the words.

                        The hebrew verb which is translated here as "gradually ... come" is a verb that denotes progressive action that takes a long time to complete.
                        Which would be nice but the verb isn't there. 'Let there be' is the usual translation for the actual Hebrew word which is 'hayah' which is not gradually.

                        01961 hayah {haw-yaw}

                        a primitive root [compare 01933]; TWOT - 491; v

                        AV - was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become,
                        pertained, better for thee; 75


                        Now there is nothing in the word hayah that shows that it must have been instantly but neither is there anything inherently gradual either. So I would say that was a translation of convenience rather than anything inherent in the words.

                        Thus the Sun was in existence, but the sunlight could not reach the reach, most likely because there were gases such as water vapor and volcanic ash in the atmosphere and that this gradually started to clear and let light reach the surface of the earth.
                        Only it says nothing about the Sun existing. Light but no sun. To claim the Sun was there is to deny the Bible for:

                        Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

                        That makes it clear the Sun was not created till the FOURTH day. Strange? Yes. Inherently wrong? Yes. Nevertheless that is what the Bible has. Light without sun mornings and evenings also without a sun and even plant life on the third day without the Sun.

                        So you are doing a massive rewrite of the Bible. Not examining what it says but ignoring it and writing a new testament.


                        Second Day- Gensis 1:6-8

                        God now formed a layer of water vapor that was in the upper atmosphere of the earth and cover the whole earth. This layer of water vapor was created form the earth's occeans. The space in between these layers was called the heavens, a term which many people use today to discribe the part of the atmosphere were plans and birds fly.
                        Boy thats a lot from little. Looks like a lead to the disproven vapor canopy nonsense. Still there is nothing there that contradicts the Bible unlike your handling of the first day.

                        Third Day - Gensis 1:9-13

                        During this period of time God started to form major land masses. He most likely used the geological forces that are still move the plates of the earth crust. Also plant life was created at this time and appears to have continued into the Sixth creative day.
                        Yes plant life is created then. Still without a Sun but there is light apparently without a source yet. The problems though are not limited to there being no sun. It says GRASS and the Hebrew supports it.

                        Grass is not a early plant. It didn't exist till the after the dinosaurs went extinct. Life in the water preceeded grass by hundreds of millions of years. Here we have a claim for grass before animals of any kind. So like light without a sun previously the timing is wrong.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jack_www
                          Fourth Day- Gensis 1:14-19

                          Here the process that was started in the first creative day came to an end, and the earth's atmosphere was clear enough to be able to now see the Sun, moon, and stars form the surface of the earth.
                          REWRITE. It says they were MADE then not became visible.

                          Its made in the Hebrew as well.

                          If you have to rewrite so much perhaps you should just give up on it.


                          Fifth Day- Gensis 1:20-23

                          During this time period sea animals and animals that fly in the air were created.
                          Which for once what the Bible actually says without rewriting. However its not accurate.

                          Animals that fly came AFTER land animals. This has at least some kind of flying animal before any life on land at all.

                          Real oder

                          life in the sea
                          life in the sea diferentiate between plant and animal
                          hundred million years or so pass
                          fish show up
                          plant life colonizes land
                          first animal life colonizes land- millipedes are the earliest known
                          much later flying insects show up for the first flying animals.

                          The Bible is talking about fowl though and so that comes even later. Birds don't show up for over a hundred million years.

                          Sixth Day- Gensis 1:24-31
                          Now land animals were created, and so was the first human pair. The garden of Eden was made at this time and the first humans were put into the garden.
                          The only problem there is the fifth day allready had the birds. They should be on the sixth.

                          Seventh Day- Gensis 2:1-3
                          This is the day that God stop creating, and thus rested in the sense that he was not creating anymore. It is also interesting to note that no were in the Bible does it say that this day has yet ended. In fact the bible stated 4000 years after this Seventh Day began that is was still going on. (Hebrews 4:4-6). Thus anther reason why the creative days do not represent a 24 hour period of time.
                          Actually this is the only day without a morning and evening. This one day is the only one that you can really say was not a 24 hour day without stretching the Bible a considerable amount.

                          orginally I had the preivisous three post as one, but since it took me a long time, when I selected post that it promted me to log in again, and then it said something like no thread was specfied and I lost all the stuff I typed. Thus when I retyped my post I broke it up so this would not happen again to me.
                          It may have just disapeared when you tried to post it. Just below the entry box there is a link that says

                          check message length

                          If you click on it you will see the character count for the post and the maximum number of characters permitted. 20,000 which is a fair amount. I haven't come near that yet and I tend get VERY wordy. I had to exercise care on some other forums I have been on.

                          Another thing I recommend is to do this for longer posts:

                          For PC users anyway;

                          Click anywhere in the text entry box
                          Hit Control-A
                          Hit Contol-C

                          That copies what you wrote to your clip board. I often open notepad at that point and paste it in there. I dislike losing an hour of typing because the internet is busy.

                          I put a hotkey in my Notepad shortcut so I can open it easily.

                          I use Control-Alt-N.

                          By using these techiques I have experienced a considerable decrease in frustration levels.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jack_www


                            I dont believe many of things that Creationists says, much of it does not make any sense. Up to the 8th grade I went to private school, and of course the only private schools are religous ones, at least were I live. Accept in 5th grade I went to one that was not a religous school, but that school only went up to the 5th grade.
                            I spent six years in Catholic school.

                            I am going to bring up scienctific evidence that proves that God created the Universe.
                            This I gotta see. I have seen the attempt before though. Never the acuality. It would be major news if such evidence existed. Usually what ensues after someone says they will do that is a bunch of stuff that boils down to:

                            'I don't understand everything therefor god did it.'

                            Which is rubbish.

                            I just wanted to first clearfy what the creation account in Gensis really says. For I am a Christian and regard the whole Bible as the word of God.

                            So how come you did a major rewrite instead of discussing what the Bible actually says?

                            I would also like to think that I would like to keep an open mind, and rexam my own beliefs to make sure that they are really true, or just a bunch of falsehoods. I do not blindly believe in Creation, I have made proved this to my self by studying the Bible and scientific evidence.
                            Well thats admirable. So far I think that real debate is possible with you. That can get interesting when a believer really is open minded.

                            No one has been merely wittnessing. Not even Zelot who has decided to ignore me in his infinite tolerance.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jack_www
                              Now I am going to go over breifly the apparent conflict in the Gensis chapter 2. The information provided here may seem to contridict what was just said in the preivous chpater. The fact is that Gensis chapter 2 is merely providing more detailed information about the creation account that was omited form the first chapter. Genesis 2:5 start out form the thrid creative day and then ends at the sixth creative day. It is basicly a parrall account of the creation of the earth.
                              Unfortunatly it does not merely add more detail. It has timing conflict. It has the animals created AFTER Adam.

                              The main thing of interest to me about the second acount is the name change for god in the Hebrew. In the first account it is always 'elohiym and in the second acount it is always Jehovah.

                              There is some strong indications that there were TWO versions of Jewish scriptures. They were mixed together later, perhaps during the Babalonian capitivity. The one set almost always used 'elohiym and the other set mostly used Jehovah. The creation story is not the only parallel but different version of a story in the Old Testament.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jack_www
                                I would like to now focus on scientific evidence that life here on earth was created, and it not happen about by chance. According many evolutionists the early atmosphere of the earth consisted of methane, ammonia, water and carbon dioxide.
                                According to geochemists and astronomers. Evolutionist is a creationist term only. Used to avoid real scientific terms.

                                Through varrious forms of energy form the sun, volcanoes, and lightning that the these chemicals were broken down and then form amino acids and they went into the sea were they formed a chemical soup of organic componds.
                                Also organic molecules have been found in space and in the tails of comets and on meteors. So it is likely that organic chemicals actually fell to earth in some quantity.

                                Many evolutionist hold that after some period of time, be accendent that a molecule that could reproduce formed. After this happen for some time simular molecules grouped to gather and formed a protective membrane of protein molecules around themselves.
                                Membranes can form spontaneasly from fatty acids. This can be seen by going to any beach on earth. The foam you see is from fatty acids on the surface of the bubbles. It is suspected this sort of thing may have been the source of the first cell walls. Not quite pure speculation but not hard science either.

                                The question is could a cell spontaneous generate form non living matter?
                                Bogus question. Invented by creationists to add uneeded complexity. The question is can a self-reproducing molecule arise. They have been made in the laboratory. Whether that can happen in the real world is now the real question.

                                The idea of spontaneous generation of life has been around a long time. In the middle ages people believed that flies and rats spontaneous generated from piles of garbed and rotting meat.
                                A standard Creationist ploy is to mention spontaneous generation even though they know it has no relation to the beginning of life. Creationist hold on to disproven things and rarely let go of them. On the internet even the things the ICR has given up on still show up.

                                Big snip of more irrelevant stuff about spontaneous generation.

                                Many who support evolution will point to the famous experiment that was proformed by Stanley Miller in 1953, and say that this shows that life was able to spontaneous generate in the past.
                                Not that I ever saw. I only see creationists make that claim. Scientists see the experiment as a early step in learning how the Earths early chemistry might have functioned to eventually bring about the first self-replicating molecules.

                                Miller assumed that the primitive atmosphere had to be free of chemically uncombined oxygen, because if there was oxygen was present it would quickly decompose any amino acids that were formed.
                                Miller looked at other planets to see what the atmosphere might have been. He had no need to assume that oxygen wasn't in them. The evidence that the early Earth had no free O2 is quite substantial. All signs point to life as the source of free oxygen.


                                Miller got a sealed flask with hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and boiling water. He sent a electric sparks through the mixture of gasses inside the flask and in a weeks time got many amino acids, the bluiding blocks of life.
                                He got a little amino acid. Not much. However we now know that amino acids even exist in space. He left out some important precursers as well. Cyanide for instance. Deadly to us oxygen breathers but it is important to organic chemistry.

                                First question that rises with this is, was the early atmosphere of the earth really like this?
                                Two years afte Miller conducted his experiment he said "These ideas are of course specculation, for we don not know the Earth has a reducing atmosphere when it was formed . . . No direct evidence has yet been found."
                                -Journal of the American Chemical Sciety, May 12, 1955.
                                We can be pretty sure it was a reducing atmosphere. Miller said that nearly half a century ago. Last I saw he is still alive and even working.

                                As of yet no conculsive proof has been found to prove that this was the case for the early atmosphere of the earth.
                                Creatinists never consider anything conclusive no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Well some of them have given up on the claim of their being human and dinosour tracks in the same layer on a Souther river bank. Of course it wasn't till the person the claimed to have found it confessed to modifying the tracks that they gave up on that. Long after. ICR had its nose rubbed in it many times over many years before they stopped repeating the falsehood.

                                But there is anther problem with this. Recent computer models of such an atmosphere inidcate that if such an atmosphere lacked oxygen that ultraviolet radiation, that is currently blocked by the ozone layer would quickly destroyed any amino acids that were formed. But as was stated that if oxygen was present that these amino acids would never have been able to be formed.
                                Well we allready know the oxygen would not have been present. We also know that UV is quickly absorbed by water and has no relevance to the question at all because of that.

                                Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
                                I will post more evidence I have latter.
                                Since there was nothing circular there you must be quoting one of the new creationist ploys. Take what the critics say and then, without understanding them, aim the phrases back at them.

                                Lately the Creationists have been calling linear thinking circular and open minds closed. I guess they just got tired of hearing those phrases aimed at them. Well they earned them.

                                The Bible is true because the Bible says so. Thats circular.

                                Evolution can't be true because the nice man in the pulpit says it can't be true. Thats a closed mind.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X