Why is "dust of the ground" OK but "primordial soup" is bad?

[verysincere]

Considering that the Bible itself affirms abiogenesis (living organisms from non-living material) in passages such as Genesis 2:7, why do so many American Christians fiercely oppose the concept?

"And God formed man from the dust of the ground."

Indeed, why is man coming from "dust" acceptable but coming from "primordial soup" is somehow unthinkable? (After all, doesn't adding water to dust produce a "soup"?)

(And before someone pontificates on how "God is alive", I'll say upfront that the Bible clearly describes God as a living SPIRIT, not a biological organism. Abiogenesis describes biological life. So don't pretend that Genesis 2:7 describes life from life rather than life from non-life.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Considering that the Bible itself affirms abiogenesis...

No, It does not.

Abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose.

SOURCE

 

[verysincere]

No, It does not.

Wikipedia definition? Very funny.

Let's put aside for the moment that most lexicons leave out the words "natural processes", what is your evidence that Genesis rules out the idea of God using natural processes?

I find it interesting that many Christians think God is so limited that he has to intervene supernaturally again and again to accomplish his will in the "natural world." A truly sovereign, omnipotent Creator is capable of creating a universe with physical laws designed to bring about that which God wills. (So God is fully capable of creating a world where the laws of physics bring about life, whether one chooses to call the ingredients "the dust of the ground" or "primordial soup".) If you are certain that the Creator didn't do that, let's see your exegesis of the Hebrew text of Genesis.

In any case, adding the "by natural processes" was a well-worn tactic but it is an example of how hard some Christ-followers work at creating a conflict between the Bible and Science where none is necessary. It is time that believers realize that God is the author of both special revelation and general revelation and these contrived Bible vs. Science conflicts got boring a very long time ago. (And all they manage to accomplish is reassuring Christian-bashers in their assumption that most Christians are ignorant of both the Bible and Science.)

But that tangent aside, why not answer my question? Why do many assume "dust of the ground" is good but "primordial soup" is bad?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wikipedia definition? Very funny.

Let's put aside for the moment that most lexicons leave out the words "natural processes", what is your evidence that Genesis rules out the idea of God using natural processes?

I find it interesting that many Christians think God is so limited that he has to intervene supernaturally again and again to accomplish his will in the "natural world." A truly sovereign, omnipotent Creator is capable of creating a universe with physical laws designed to bring about that which God wills. (So God is fully capable of creating a world where the laws of physics bring about life, whether one chooses to call the ingredients "the dust of the ground" or "primordial soup".) If you are certain that the Creator didn't do that, let's see your exegesis of the Hebrew text of Genesis.

In any case, adding the "by natural processes" was a well-worn tactic but it is an example of how hard some Christ-followers work at creating a conflict between the Bible and Science where none is necessary. It is time that believers realize that God is the author of both special revelation and general revelation and these contrived Bible vs. Science conflicts got boring a very long time ago. (And all they manage to accomplish is reassuring Christian-bashers in their assumption that most Christians are ignorant of both the Bible and Science.)

But that tangent aside, why not answer my question? Why do many assume "dust of the ground" is good but "primordial soup" is bad?

Have a good day.

 

[Split Rock]

But that tangent aside, why not answer my question? Why do many assume "dust of the ground" is good but "primordial soup" is bad?

Because you are missing the key element, which is "Goddidit." In this example, God formed Adam literally from dust and literally breathed life into him. This means none of that nasty, Godless evolution stuff for mankind.

 

[cupid dave]

Considering that the Bible itself affirms abiogenesis (living organisms from non-living material) in passages such as Genesis 2:7, why do so many American Christians fiercely oppose the concept?

"And God formed man from the dust of the ground."

Indeed, why is man coming from "dust" acceptable but coming from "primordial soup" is somehow unthinkable? (After all, doesn't adding water to dust produce a "soup"?)

(And before someone pontificates on how "God is alive", I'll say upfront that the Bible clearly describes God as a living SPIRIT, not a biological organism. Abiogenesis describes biological life. So don't pretend that Genesis 2:7 describes life from life rather than life from non-life.)

The meaning of the "dust of the earth" has been ignored to a large extent, probably because of the expression suggest the idea of "Nothingness."
The medieval interpretations understood this to be magic or a miraculous unnatural event.

We Theistic Evolution Christians understand this to be a reference to chemistry.


In a sense, all living creatures have been manufactured from chemicals.
So we must assume that such an understanding infers more than this.
The implication is that man is a special case, one where Chemistry was involved in an unusual way.

What we understand is that the inference refers to a genetic mutation.
A mutation whereby some baby, in the mother ape's womb, was transfigured into a new species by the fusing of two chromosome together.

This reduced the normal 24 chromosomes found in all apes to only the 23 chromosomes found in us humans.

This Act-of-God was similarly the case in the virginal birth of Jesus, in the sense that God was really the father, in the sense of this Act-of-God which brought forth the first begotten of the next evolution, called Homoiousian sapiens.

 

[Huram Abi]

We Theistic Evolution Christians understand this to be a reference to chemistry.

Source?

 

[Huram Abi]

(And before someone pontificates on how "God is alive", I'll say upfront that the Bible clearly describes God as a living SPIRIT, not a biological organism. Abiogenesis describes biological life. So don't pretend that Genesis 2:7 describes life from life rather than life from non-life.)

Agreed.

Abstractions are just the obscuring of the subject.

 

[Huram Abi]

Oh, I get it.

Since Cupid changed his "bible's" name from "The Freudian Darwinist 21st Century Spirit Bible Interpretation and Translation" to "The Theistic Evolution Bible Interpretation" he can presume to speak on behalf of real theistic evolutionists like the Catholics and tell us all that the Catholics read his book and follow him.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

MOD HAT ON​

This thread has undergone a clean-up. If you notice any of your posts missing, this is why. Please be mindful of the following rules as you continue to post here:​

Blasphemy
You will not insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father(God), Son(Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Honest debate about the nature of God and Christianity is allowed, but derogatory remarks will be promptly removed.​

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
● Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.
● Those who do not adhere to the Statement of Faith are welcome as members and participants in discussions, but you are required to respect these beliefs, even if you do not share them. ​

http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_rule_0​

Thanks ~Staff​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[jpcedotal]

dust of the ground: God's answer
primordial soup: man's answer

That's all it takes for me.

 

[jpcedotal]

As you're a trained creationists that's exactly how it should be, yo momma will be pleased.

God is pleased as well, which is even more important than Mama.

 

[valkyree]

Considering that the Bible itself affirms abiogenesis (living organisms from non-living material) in passages such as Genesis 2:7, why do so many American Christians fiercely oppose the concept?

"And God formed man from the dust of the ground."

Indeed, why is man coming from "dust" acceptable but coming from "primordial soup" is somehow unthinkable? (After all, doesn't adding water to dust produce a "soup"?)

(And before someone pontificates on how "God is alive", I'll say upfront that the Bible clearly describes God as a living SPIRIT, not a biological organism. Abiogenesis describes biological life. So don't pretend that Genesis 2:7 describes life from life rather than life from non-life.)

the Bible speaks of a living spirit being - the Creator - going thru a ''creation process'' that involves planning and thought and careful work

abiogenesis defines a random unplanned process where somehow non-living atoms take it upon themselves to form non-living molecules and so on until enough complexity is randomly reached that life somehow forms without planning or thought

there is a big difference between these two ideas

primordial soup is not bad - it just has an extremely low probability of happening

 

[verysincere]

abiogenesis defines a random unplanned process

1) The assumption that it would have to be a "random process" is a myth. The laws of physics and chemistry which the Bible says God created are NOT random at all. They work in particular ways under particular conditions.

2) To rightly call it "unplanned" is to deny the Bible's claim that God intended for various events to take place. (Or are you saying that God has no role in some events taking place?)

...where somehow non-living atoms take it upon themselves

It sounds like you are anthropomorphizing non-living matter. Non-living atoms do not "take it upon themselves" to do anything. The laws of physics and chemistry act to bring about various results. Those are not "forces of volition and agency", although many would agree that God is the ultimate cause behind them.

there is a big difference between these two ideas

Perhaps, but so far you have yet to establish that difference.

primordial soup is not bad - it just has an extremely low probability of happening

The Bible says that God is in no way impeded by "chance". For example, "the outcome of the lots [as in dice] are in the hands of the Lord." So to argue that what you perceive as having "an extremely low probability of happening" means that the events couldn't have happened is illogical. Of course, other than your personal intuition, you haven't provided any basis for a "low probability." But if the laws of physics and chemistry operated as we know them to operate, the results which those laws produced were not random and therefore could not be automatically assumed of "low probability."

Science is naturalistic by definition. (It makes no statements about the supernatural or God, either pro or con, because it lacks the tools and procedures in the scientific method to make such statements possible.) Therefore, to claim "the dust of the ground" in the Bible is associated with God while the abiogenesis hypotheses investigated by science do not mention God and thereby rule out God tells me that you do not understand how science operates.

You could just as easily claim "The Theory of Gravity is contrary to the Bible because it implies that masses attract one another randomly because they take it upon themselves to do so. But in the Bible God does everything. Therefore, the positions are very different and in opposition." Are you making that claim? Or do you only apply these criteria to abiogenesis and not other phenomena in science?

 

[valkyree]

1)

It sounds like you are anthropomorphizing non-living matter. Non-living atoms do not "take it upon themselves" to do anything.

The laws of physics and chemistry act to bring about various results. Those are not "forces of volition and agency", although many would agree that God is the ultimate cause behind them.



?

precisely why abiogenesis cannot occur

you are just kicking the can down the road

how do the laws of physics and chemistry act to bring about results?? they can not do so - only intelligent beings can do so

where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from? .....from some form of intelligence that can take it upon itself to do creative things ......even remarkable things like forming the first life

life does not spring from non-life as abiogenesis claims - but some people can't give it up because they want it to so bad

 

[Huram Abi]

You need to read up on abiogenesis before you begin to talk about what it claims.

 

[valkyree]

1)

Perhaps, but so far you have yet to establish that difference.


?

no - you are unable or unwilling to see the difference - and until you do see the difference you will continue to go around in circles like a dog chasing his tail

 

[valkyree]

1) Science is naturalistic by definition. ?

here is one of your problems - an inaccurate definition of what science is

evolutionary based modern science is attempting to be a naturalistic/atheistic foundation for our existence ---but it's a faulty foundation and will never get to the truth of the universe or the earth or anything else

 

[verysincere]

precisely why abiogenesis cannot occur

The repetition of your arguments indicate that you failed to understand the fundamentals which I explained. I suggest you read them again. (I'm not belittling your limitations on God's sovereignty over his creation--and the idea that his omnipotence, omniscience, and existence outside of the boundaries of time would extend to creating a universe where he can establish whatever "path" he ordains for it. That's certainly your right and many skeptics, both Christian and not, would applaud you for it. But a more fundamental problem is that you are fostering false dichotomies which ignore the definition of science and the nature of the scientific method.)

Moreover, you've confused the differences between philosophical materialism and methodological materialism. The former is indeed atheistic. The later refers to the methodological naturalism of science and the scientific method, which take no positions either way about God and the supernatural in general. (Most any first semester textbook used by a university History & Philosophy of Science Dept. will take you through the basics of the definitions and fundamental concepts. I don't know where you live but I've gotten the impression that there is more emphasis on these topics at major campuses in the UK than in the U.S. What should be avoided is websites like Conservapedia, fundamentalist bloggers like Al Mohler, and other creation science promoters who basically keep quoting one another as authorities and have little or no scholarly background [or credibility] in the science academy.)

I'm not surprised that you've confused the concepts related to naturalism because this is a very common error in "creation science" books and websites. I know from my own history of academic involvement within the YEC community that some promote it out of ignorance and some promote it because, as they admitted privately, emphasizing that "the sky is falling" and ranting about the alleged atheistic purposes and conspiracies of modern science was the best way to attract donations from frightened followers. Political operatives use similar tactics. Compare the average creation science ministry plea-for-donations letter with that of a political organization. You will find remarkable similarities.

So I recommend you investigate the differences between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism and how they impact these topics before heading into more complex topics. Until you get past the distinctions, you are going to keep going in circles and many will be confused by your misuse of terminology.

 

[AV1611VET]

You need to read up on abiogenesis before you begin to talk about what it claims.

As I have said before, in abiogenesis, the impetus is on life arising from non-living matter; as opposed to creationism, where God imparted life to the dust of the earth.

Abiogenesis is a joke.