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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Questions for creationists
Collapse
X
-
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.
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.
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.
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??
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jack_www
According many evolutionists the early atmosphere of the earth consisted of methane, ammonia, water and carbon dioxide.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by Jack_www
First question that rises with this is, was the early atmosphere of the earth really like this?
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.
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.
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
-
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.
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.
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.
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).
The hebrew verb which is translated here as "gradually ... come" is a verb that denotes progressive action that takes a long time to complete.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 am going to bring up scienctific evidence that proves that God created the Universe.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Comment