Creationists: Explain how life was created.

pitabread said:

Even a single paper on evolution or abiogenesis provides more explanatory power than anything creationists have brought forth in this thread.

Click to expand...

Only on paper.

pitabread said:

Ultimately all explanations are tested by against what we observe in nature itself.

Click to expand...

Trouble is, you're trying to test a miracle ... a miracle of creation ... and it can't be done.

That's like trying to find out what color the invisible man's eyes are.

Justatruthseeker said:

God formed them out of the dust of the earth and gave them life, which is why your origins never happens today, can't be replicated. It's why those same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up dust are alive in one thing and not in another.

Click to expand...

Let's hypothesise that tomorrow abiogenesis researchers succeed in having primitive life spontanously form under controlled conditions. What would your reaction be? I'm just curious.

Evolution is not an explanation for the origin of species, it takes what already exists and alters it

Click to expand...

And then those alterations accumulate in the genepool and thereby brings about speciation events.

Evolution is a pretty simple idea you know...

, not creates something new from scratch

Click to expand...

Gratz on stating the obvious.

Please do not try to imply evolution explains the origin of species, as it does not in the slightest.

Click to expand...

Except that it does. Speciation is literally the result of the accumulation of alterations in the DNA.

In fact, evolutionists always content that origins is a separate issue from evolution....

Click to expand...

The origin of LIFE. Evolution explains the origins of SPECIES. Of BIO-DIVERSITY.

Justatruthseeker said:

If you reject that assertion please provide evidence of life not fully formed in it's then present form......

Click to expand...

Blatant shift of the burden of proof.

What is asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.

Justatruthseeker said:

Here's the real state of your theory of origins.....


The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life
(except for all the others)

Click to expand...

Hey Steve,

hyperlinks to files on your desktop in c:\users\steve\desktop, can't be accessed through the interwebs.


ps: nobody on this side is claiming that the mystery of abiogenesis has been solved....

Justatruthseeker said:

No, evolution evolved people of no faith...... in any Father..... Except that "missing" common ancestor that remains unseen..... Now that unseen Father is believed in with the utmost faith......

Click to expand...

Speak for yourself, humans have been searching for their maker for hundreds of thousands of years.

pitabread said:

The problem is that you guys don't seem to want to know. "Goddidit" seems like the end of the road for creationism.

And that's what perplexes me. Even a single paper on evolution or abiogenesis provides more explanatory power than anything creationists have brought forth in this thread.

And there are millions of papers on evolution and origin-of-life research...

Click to expand...

All of those papers just say life evolved, none of them explain how life was created.

Evolutionist don't create life. You've gotten a little ahead of yourself.

The "two essential attributes—mind endowment and reproductive powers."


36:6.3 Life Carriers can organize the material forms, or physical patterns, of living beings, but the Spirit provides the initial spark of life and bestows the endowment of mind. Even the living forms of experimental life which the Life Carriers organize on their Salvington worlds are always devoid of reproductive powers. When the life formulas and the vital patterns are correctly assembled and properly organized, the presence of a Life Carrier is sufficient to initiate life, but all such living organisms are lacking in two essential attributes—mind endowment and reproductive powers. Animal mind and human mind are gifts of the local universe Mother Spirit, functioning through the seven adjutant mind-spirits, while creature ability to reproduce is the specific and personal impartation of the Universe Spirit to the ancestral life plasm inaugurated by the Life Carriers.

36:6.4 When the Life Carriers have designed the patterns of life, after they have organized the energy systems, there must occur an additional phenomenon; the “breath of life” must be imparted to these lifeless forms. The Sons of God can construct the forms of life, but it is the Spirit of God who really contributes the vital spark. And when the life thus imparted is spent, then again the remaining material body becomes dead matter. When the bestowed life is exhausted, the body returns to the bosom of the material universe from which it was borrowed by the Life Carriers to serve as a transient vehicle for that life endowment which they conveyed to such a visible association of energy-matter.

36:6.5 The life bestowed upon plants and animals by the Life Carriers does not return to the Life Carriers upon the death of plant or animal. The departing life of such a living thing possesses neither identity nor personality; it does not individually survive death. During its existence and the time of its sojourn in the body of matter, it has undergone a change; it has undergone energy evolution and survives only as a part of the cosmic forces of the universe; it does not survive as individual life. The survival of mortal creatures is wholly predicated on the evolvement of an immortal soul within the mortal mind.


36:6.6 We speak of life as “energy" and as “force,” but it is really neither. Force-energy is variously gravity responsive; life is not. Pattern is also nonresponsive to gravity, being a configuration of energies that have already fulfilled all gravity-responsive obligations. Life, as such, constitutes the animation of some pattern-configured or otherwise segregated system of energy—material, mindal, or spiritual.

36:6.7 There are some things connected with the elaboration of life on the evolutionary planets which are not altogether clear to us. We fully comprehend the physical organization of the electrochemical formulas of the Life Carriers, but we do not wholly understand the nature and source of the life-activation spark. We know that life flows from the Father through the Son and by the Spirit. It is more than possible that the Master Spirits are the sevenfold channel of the river of life which is poured out upon all creation. But we do not comprehend the technique whereby the supervising Master Spirit participates in the initial episode of life bestowal on a new planet. The Ancients of Days, we are confident, also have some part in this inauguration of life on a new world, but we are wholly ignorant of the nature thereof. We do know that the Universe Mother Spirit actually vitalizes the lifeless patterns and imparts to such activated plasm the prerogatives of organismal reproduction. We observe that these three are the levels of God the Sevenfold, sometimes designated as the Supreme Creators of time and space; but otherwise we know little more than Urantia mortals—simply that concept is inherent in the Father, expression in the Son, and life realization in the Spirit." UB 1955

Colter said:

All of those papers just say life evolved, none of them explain how life was created.

Click to expand...

"created", as in an action with intent by a conscious entity. No, idd, no science papers explains such a thing, because there isn't any data to suggest that any such thing happened.

However, abiogenesis papers most definatly address the subject of the origins of life. That's, in fact, what the entire field is all about.

DogmaHunter said:

"created", as in an action with intent by a conscious entity. No, idd, no science papers explains such a thing, because there isn't any data to suggest that any such thing happened.

However, abiogenesis papers most definatly address the subject of the origins of life. That's, in fact, what the entire field is all about.

Click to expand...

The abiogenesis theory and the Urantia revelation would make a lovely couple.


"the “breath of life” must be imparted to these lifeless forms."


"The Sons of God can construct the forms of life, but it is the Spirit of God who really contributes the vital spark. And when the life thus imparted is spent, then again the remaining material body becomes dead matter."

Colter said:

The abiogenesis theory and the Urantia revelation would make a lovely couple.

Click to expand...

Not unless the "Urantia revelation" (whatever that may be) is testable in empirical reality.

"the “breath of life” must be imparted to these lifeless forms."

Click to expand...

That's nice. But it sounds a little to vaguely poetic for my taste, to be usefull.

"The Sons of God can construct the forms of life, but it is the Spirit of God who really contributes the vital spark. And when the life thus imparted is spent, then again the remaining material body becomes dead matter."

Click to expand...

So how does one test that?

Justatruthseeker said:

No, evolution evolved people of no faith...... in any Father..... Except that "missing" common ancestor that remains unseen..... Now that unseen Father is believed in with the utmost faith......

Click to expand...

Wait.... are you saying that it is unreasonable to suggest that humans have ancestors?

DogmaHunter said:

Wait.... are you saying that it is unreasonable to suggest that humans have ancestors?

Click to expand...

Oh no, we have no problem showing human ancestors, or chimp ancestors.....

It's just when you get to the point you want to claim they diverged that the ancestors mysteriously disappear for every single species on every single tree.....

AV1611VET said:

Trouble is, you're trying to test a miracle ... a miracle of creation ... and it can't be done.

That's like trying to find out what color the invisible man's eyes are.

Click to expand...

For once, I agree.
Yes, in terms of evidence and testability, God has very much in common with the "invisible man". In fact, let's make it the "undetectable man" instead. Or extra-dimensional golden unicorn. Or any other unfalsifiable entity that you'll agree likely doesn't exist, based solely on its unfalsifiable nature.

DogmaHunter said:

"created", as in an action with intent by a conscious entity. No, idd, no science papers explains such a thing, because there isn't any data to suggest that any such thing happened.

However, abiogenesis papers most definatly address the subject of the origins of life. That's, in fact, what the entire field is all about.

Click to expand...

Please, you in reality have nothing but a confused jumbled mess that explains nothing that works....


The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)

Justatruthseeker said:

Oh no, we have no problem showing human ancestors, or chimp ancestors.....

Click to expand...

Really? Aren't they "missing", as you use the term?
Because I'm pretty certain that any and all direct evidence that my great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother existed is pretty much missing.

It's just when you get to the point you want to claim they diverged that the ancestors mysteriously disappear for every single species on every single tree.....

Click to expand...

Considering such diverging doesn't happen within a single life time, why would you assume anything but them disappearing?

I mean, does it really need to be explained that no members of a 7 million year old population are still alive today?

DogmaHunter said:

For once, I agree.
Yes, in terms of evidence and testability, God has very much in common with the "invisible man". In fact, let's make it the "undetectable man" instead. Or extra-dimensional golden unicorn. Or any other unfalsifiable entity that you'll agree likely doesn't exist, based solely on its unfalsifiable nature.

Click to expand...

But the invisible man can be known to exist by the evidence he leaves behind. You know, that design that is so apparent in biological systems that Dawkins was forced to go to an alien race creating man to avoid the logical conclusion......

I notice you don't have a problem with Dark Matter or Dark Energy which can never be seen or directly detected.... So that unfalsifiable nature strawman only comes into belief by you when it comes to God, right??????

Justatruthseeker said:

Please, you in reality have nothing but a confused jumbled mess that explains nothing that works....


The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)

Click to expand...

You seem confused.
I haven't claimed at all that abiogenesis is a solved puzzle.

Scientists working in that field, doing actual research and experiments, are trying to solve it.
See, rational intellectually honest people don't just assume the answers before asking the questions. No. They first ask the question, investigate the question, gather data/evidence, try to come up with possible answers (hypothesis), then go on and test that hypothesis, form conclusions and repeat.

I actually respect the work they do.
You? You seem more interested in standing on the sidelines screaming that they have no clue what they are doing while waving a 2500 year old religious book, pretending that it holds any answers.

But hey..... whatever makes you sleep at night.
You can continue waving that book. Meanwhile, actual scientists will continue working and actually make progress.