Abiogenesis Harder than Once Thought

[AV1611VET]

That's what happened, according to God.

Not hardly.

Nature can't do what God did.

For example, God created angiosperms before the sun.

According to natural processes, this can't happen.

You do think Earth is non-living, right?

Right.

If God chose to create by using natural processes, what do you find offensive about that?

Nothing.

But that's not what He said He did.

After all, He used natural processes to create your living body.

Note when God shows up and starts dialoging with Job, He asks Job some seventy questions, all pertaining to creation.

Job wisely kept silent.

Science, on the other hand, says this that and the other thing, then has to change their story when another discovery proves them wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's what happened, according to God.

Not hardly.

Nature can't do what God did.

Nature did what God made it to do. It brought forth living things as God made it to do.

For example, God created angiosperms before the sun.

God didn't say so. Some people reinterpreted His word to make it fit their wishes, but that's not the same thing.

If God chose to create by using natural processes, what do you find offensive about that?

Nothing.

You seem sort of unhappy with His word that the Earth brought forth living things.

But that's not what He said He did.

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1: 24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds.

That's what He said. After all, He used natural processes to create your living body. Why is that so objectionable to you?

Note when God shows up and starts dialoging with Job, He asks Job some seventy questions, all pertaining to creation.

None of which deny what He said in Genesis. Why not just accept it His way?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's what happened, according to God.

'Fraid not.

Nature did what God made it to do.

So God put the earth right in the path of a comet, so it could get whacked and our oceans arise?

It brought forth living things as God made it to do.

Not the way you think it did though.

When God created trees ex materia, He ordered the elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) to leave their place of existence and rendezvous at an appointed place, combine chemically, and shoot up out of the earth with their respective fruits (apples, oranges, pears, bananas, etc) fully mature -- (but without a history).

And those elements obeyed.

This is something no science book on earth will teach.

Especially your Authorized King James McGraw-Hill science textbooks.

God didn't say so.

Really?

God didn't speak and the trees came forth ex materia? then speak again later and the sun appeared ex nihilo?

Some people reinterpreted His word to make it fit their wishes, but that's not the same thing.

So you're saying the correct interpretation came first, then was reinterpreted later?

Do you happen to have a copy of that correct interpretation?

If God chose to create by using natural processes, what do you find offensive about that?

I'll say it again.

Nothing.

If God chose to create by using natural processes, then who am I to argue?

The thing is though, He told us how He did it.

In fact, He put in writing what He did, when He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why He did it that long, and who the eyewitness were -- many of them by name.

And I assure you two of them weren't James H. McGraw and John A. Hill.

You seem sort of unhappy with His word that the Earth brought forth living things.

You gotta be kidding me -- right?

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1: 24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds.

That's what He said.

No, that's not what He said.

But I'll humor you and play along for your edification.

These were acts of creatio ex materia.

Calling the elements from wherever they were and assembling them together into biological units.

After all, He used natural processes to create your living body.

You're jumping ahead from 4004 BC to AD 1954 to make this point.

Let's stick within the confines of the creation week, shall we?

Why is that so objectionable to you?

Because God objects to it, and therefore I do as well.

None of which deny what He said in Genesis.

You don't even know what He said in Genesis, do you?

Why not just accept it His way?

I'm already there.

Care to join me?

 

[The Barbarian]

So God put the earth right in the path of a comet, so it could get whacked and our oceans arise?

As Aquinas noted, divine providence can occur by necessity or by contingency. God can use either to effect His purposes.

Genesis 1: 24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds.

That's what He said. After all, He used natural processes to create your living body. Why is that so objectionable to you?

These were acts of creatio ex materia.

As you see, God uses nature for most things in this world. Why do you object to His choice? After all, He used natural processes to create your living body.

You're jumping ahead from 4004 BC to AD 1954 to make this point.

So it's a different God now? Or are you claiming that He suddenly realized that there was a better way? You seem troubled by the inherent contradictions in your beliefs. Why not just tell God that you accept creation in any way that seems right him?

Then you will no longer be troubled.

 

[AV1611VET]

As Aquinas noted,

Aquinas can take a hike.

I'm asking you if you believe God put Earth into the path of a comet, so it would hit Earth and deliver the oceans?

Let's see what you specifically believe for a change.

... divine providence can occur by necessity or by contingency.

Let's go with necessity in this case.

God can use either to effect His purposes.

That's right.

It's His call.

And He made sure it was properly documented and preserved for our edification.

Not for our criticism.

Genesis 1: 24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds.

Here we go again.

That's what He said. After all, He used natural processes to create your living body. Why is that so objectionable to you?

As you see, God uses nature for most things in this world. Why do you object to His choice? After all, He used natural processes to create your living body.

So it's a different God now?

If you're wondering why God didn't create ME in the same way He created Adam, it's because He finished His creation after six days.

Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

 

[The Barbarian]

Aquinas can take a hike.

He did. And that's why he understands divine providence better than those who haven't bothered to learn about it.

I'm asking you if you believe God put Earth into the path of a comet, so it would hit Earth and deliver the oceans?

Let's see what you specifically believe for a change.

I believe what Jesus says in Matthew.
Matthew 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

When you understand what He says here, you will have your answer. Did God step in and adjust things or maybe magically create a comet on a collision path with Earth, because He suddenly realized that Earth would need oceans? Or did he create nature so that this would happen as a natural consequence of the order He established at creation?

Given God's omniscience and immortality, a Christian would have to accept the later. Whether this happened as a necessary chain of events, or whether it came about by contingency doesn't matter at all, given an omnipotent Creator Who could do either. You should remember that God does not do miracles because He has to do them. They are done for us, to teach us something.

That's what He said. After all, He used natural processes to create your living body. Why is that so objectionable to you?
(broken record objection)

One of the Superpowers of Learning - Repetition

If you're wondering why God didn't create ME in the same way He created Adam, it's because He finished His creation after six days.

So you don't think you're a creature of God? Seriously? You couldn't be, if He ceased creation long before you were born. Again, the inherent contradictions in your beliefs are giving you a great deal of trouble understanding His word.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

So, asking this as a genuine question and not an attempt at a 'gotcha' type question, how does the math for panspermia look then? And I'm not talking about the 'directed' panspermia that we see referenced in the article (which sounds a lot more along the lines of pseudoscience and outright science-fiction than anything actually scientific), but just general panspermia. Earth does show a vast array of impacts extraterrestrial asteroids and meteorites.

I also feel that looking at anything through a mathematical lense of chance will always end up looking bad, since if you number crunch anything hard enough, you can virtually say that anything is, to use the article's own words, 'unimaginably difficult'.

I'll be watching this thread. It sounds like possibly another hole in the "Hypothesis of Evolution"

 

[AV1611VET]

So you don't think you're a creature of God? Seriously? You couldn't be, if He ceased creation long before you were born. Again, the inherent contradictions in your beliefs are giving you a great deal of trouble understanding His word.

Are we done now -- (I hope)?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll be watching this thread. It sounds like possibly another hole in the "Hypothesis of Evolution"

LOL

Don't you know evolution has more holes in it than Swiss cheese in a firing range?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll be watching this thread. It sounds like possibly another hole in the "Hypothesis of Evolution"

It really doesn't.

 

[The Barbarian]

I also feel that looking at anything through a mathematical lense of chance will always end up looking bad, since if you number crunch anything hard enough, you can virtually say that anything is, to use the article's own words, 'unimaginably difficult'.

I'll be watching this thread. It sounds like possibly another hole in the "Hypothesis of Evolution"

Here's another way to test your assumption. Take a deck of cards, shuffle them well, and deal them out one at a time, noting the order. The probability of that order is 52! or about...
1 divided by 806,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Which is, trust me, an extremely unlikely event. And yet, every time you shuffle the deck you get a result that unlikely. Does that suggest something wrong with your reasoning?

 

[AV1611VET]

Take a deck of cards, shuffle them well, and deal them out one at a time, noting the order. The probability of that order is 52! or about...
1 divided by 806,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

That's a negative.

The probability is 1:1.

HOWEVER, the probability of listing beforehand the exact sequence is 52!

But you must make the call before you deal them out.

God said beforehand ...

Genesis 1:26a And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

He then called Adam into existence, against any odds to the contrary.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

LOL

Don't you know evolution has more holes in it than Swiss cheese in a firing range?

It really doesn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

It really doesn't.

You can't see them because they're covered up.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You can't see them because they're covered up.

Not true in the slightest.

 

[BCP1928]

Never mind. It seems important to creationists to pretend that abiogenesis and evolution are being presented by science as absolute fact.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not true in the slightest.

Fair enough.

QV please:

See all those blue lines?

Can you give me three binominals within any one of them please?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fair enough.

QV please:

View attachment 368475

See all those blue lines?

Can you give me three binominals within any one of them please?

I'm actually not since I wanted to bow out of this thread so I'm not going to derail it. If you want an answer, start a challenge thread. You've not done one for a while.

 

[Ophiolite]

Fair enough.

QV please:

View attachment 368475

See all those blue lines?

Can you give me three binominals within any one of them please?

Do you mean three named fossil species on a single ancestral branch, or three modern species that the chart connects? Anyway, I'll go with the former.

Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens.

 

[The Barbarian]

Take a deck of cards, shuffle them well, and deal them out one at a time, noting the order. The probability of that order is 52! or about...
1 divided by 806,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

That's a negative.

No, you're wrong. The likelihood of the order of cards is just that. It's only 1.0 after the fact. Now go back and apply that thinking to the origin of life, your particular genome, and other things also similarly unlikely.

The probability of anything happening after it happens is 1.0.