Creationists: Explain how life was created.

[DogmaHunter]

It's always the same, if i tell i have God in my life and i have experienced him. Others will say muslims experienced allah or something, and my spiritual experiences are hallucinations.

Huh?

I'm merely asking how you go about determining if what you belief is actually accurate.
If you don't want to answer, or can't answer, just say so.


And yes indeed, if you claim to have certain experiences and other people are claiming to have experiences that contradict your experiences..... then it logically follows that one of you (or both) is incorrect.

You can't both be right, since that would create a logical contradiction.
You can, however, both be wrong.

So..... hence the question. How do you determine if what you believe, is actually accurate?

As a bystander who witnesses two people make contradicting claims, how do I determine which one I accept - if any?

 

[NBB]

Huh?

I'm merely asking how you go about determining if what you belief is actually accurate.
If you don't want to answer, or can't answer, just say so.


And yes indeed, if you claim to have certain experiences and other people are claiming to have experiences that contradict your experiences..... then it logically follows that one of you (or both) is incorrect.

You can't both be right, since that would create a logical contradiction.
You can, however, both be wrong.

So..... hence the question. How do you determine if what you believe, is actually accurate?

As a bystander who witnesses two people make contradicting claims, how do I determine which one I accept - if any?

I was implying that i have experienced God, and had spiritual experiences, because of this i am 100% sure God is real. He did things in my life. That is why my belief is accurate. I can't transfer my feelings and thoughts and memories to you so... just take as a witness account.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Only God knows! The bible says so, I believe it and you can't prove otherwise.

I also can't prove that it wasn't an undetectable golden unicorn. But that seems like a really really bad reason to believe it.

You state exactly how life began --you don't know.

Still having trouble with understanding what the words "don't know" mean, I see.

He breathed into the dust----I'm pretty sure I already said that.

WOOSH!

That was the sound of the sarcastic point, flying over your head.

No---that is not what he is asking.

Yes it is. He even explicitly clarified it later on in the post.
I don't understand what you hope to accomplish by lying about that.

We said, God made man from the dust of the earth--that is how man was made--He then said he wants details about that process---which then is asking the process of life itself.

Yes. He is asking about the origins of species.
The explanation he accepts is the scientific theory of evolution.

Creationists on the other hand, claim that those species were created from scratch.
So he asks about that claim.

Seems perfectly legit.
His question isn't about life itself. It's about species. The creationist "explanation" just so happens to be about an event that created life itself, in the form of millions of species.

That's on you, not on him.
His question still is only about species.

And we keep saying----God's breath is life. You are asking how life originated---that is the bottom line of what you are asking. God made the animals and breathed life into them. Same thing as man. So all we're doing is going round in circles---

That's a claim, not an explanation.

 

[mmksparbud]

I'm not a scientist.
Actual scientists who work by doing research in the field of abiogenesis, do such things every day when they go to work. It literally is their job.

And no, they haven't reproduced it yet. If they did, then we wouldn't have to say that "we don't know how exactly life originated".

See, scientists aren't content with just making claims like "nature-did-it". Nature did nothing at all until they can actually explain what "nature did" at what time, using which processes etc.

Unlike you people where you are content with only saying "god dun it".
That's the difference between religion and science.

Religion asserts, even before asking the questions.
Science explains, and only after lots of research and the harsh scrutiny of peers who double and tripple check results, methods, data, experiment set ups, etc etc etc to make sure it is valid.

Bottom line---you don't know. You have not been able to double, triple or even single check it! You are assuming you can without any prove you can. Come back when you have done it. (By you, I mean your scientific group) You have no more prove that there s a scientific answer than we can prove to you that there is a God. You are still going on faith of a process that you can not do.

Because I had an inexplicable biological urge to reproduce.

Yah--God put that urge in you to carry on the species. God just made the first 2.

To express themselves, their emotions. Or just for entertainment.

To express themselves or to earn money.


So I guess God had biological urges, wanted to be an artist or was trying to make money?

And thst is what God did--He expressed Himself, His emotions and guess what---for His own pleasure.
Rev_4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

God doesn't need money---He owns the universe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I was implying that i have experienced God, and had spiritual experiences, because of this i am 100% sure God is real. He did things in my life. That is why my belief is accurate. I can't transfer my feelings and thoughts and memories to you so... just take as a witness account.

See, that's the problem....
If I take your word for it, then I set a precendent standard.

If next some hindu guy comes along making claims about having spiritual experiences with Visjnoe or Shiva, then I'ld also have to accept that at face value as well. Otherwise I'ld be holding a double standard.

Clearly you can understand that if that Hindu guy makes such claims, then clearly at least one of you MUST be wrong, right?

So, how do I (or you) determine if what you think you have experienced, is actually what you experienced?

In short: why should I believe you?

Clearly just taking it at face value will not work, as that would inescapably lead to contradictions, as explained above.

So... yeah.

I hope you see the problem.

 

[NBB]

See, that's the problem....
If I take your word for it, then I set a precendent standard.

If next some hindu guy comes along making claims about having spiritual experiences with Visjnoe or Shiva, then I'ld also have to accept that at face value as well. Otherwise I'ld be holding a double standard.

Clearly you can understand that if that Hindu guy makes such claims, then clearly at least one of you MUST be wrong, right?

So, how do I (or you) determine if what you think you have experienced, is actually what you experienced?

In short: why should I believe you?

Clearly just taking it at face value will not work, as that would inescapably lead to contradictions, as explained above.

So... yeah.

I hope you see the problem.

I don't believe without proof, because i have proof, at least for myself. I'm pretty sure my senses are not lying to me, and what i have experienced is real, i bet my life on it. But right, is difficult to just believe a random guy telling you this.
If you are interested in searching for God (which is the most important thing in life) look for him yourself maybe you won't get dissapointed if you invest in it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Bottom line---you don't know.

Yes, we've established that already.
It's called honesty.

You have not been able to double, triple or even single check it!

Not my job. Universities train scientists to do that.

You are assuming you can without any prove you can. Come back when you have done it.

I could. All it would take is studying up to achieve the required expertise and become an abiogenesis scientist. But I have neither the time nore the motivation to do that.
I got my own profession to worry about.

(By you, I mean your scientific group)

It is what they do every day: come up with ideas, test them, gather results, draw conclusions and proceed accordingly.

That's how we learn things. That's how we gathered the knowledge required to build computers, space shuttles, medicine, drill platforms, nuclear power stations, cars, ............

You have no more prove that there s a scientific answer than we can prove to you that there is a God. You are still going on faith of a process that you can not do.

The difference is that science is actually searching for answers.
Can they guarantee success? Off course not.
But at least they try instead of just making some assertion and pretending it to be the answer.

Yah--God put that urge in you to carry on the species. God just made the first 2.

Human population never consisted of only 2 humans, as demonstrated by our collective DNA.

Any population that numbers less then 200, furthermore, is as good as doomed to extinction.

And once more here, all you offer is yet another religious assertion.

And thst is what God did--He expressed Himself, His emotions and guess what---for His own pleasure.

Seems kind of narcistic.
But anyway, you determined this how?

Rev_4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Ow okay. You just read it in a 2000 year old religious manuscript and took it at face value.
That's cool.... My standards are just a teeny bit higher though.

So you can keep on believing your religious book of antiquity, while people who don't settle for unfalsifiable propositions can keep making actual progress. Progress, that you then will happily enjoy the fruits of, making you kind of a hypocrit.

But that's fine off course. It's your right to do that.
But please, don't come complaining to people who's mindset makes such progress possible.

 

[mmksparbud]

I also can't prove that it wasn't an undetectable golden unicorn. But that seems like a really really bad reason to believe it.



Still having trouble with understanding what the words "don't know" mean, I see.



WOOSH!

That was the sound of the sarcastic point, flying over your head.



Yes it is. He even explicitly clarified it later on in the post.
I don't understand what you hope to accomplish by lying about that.



Yes. He is asking about the origins of species.
The explanation he accepts is the scientific theory of evolution.

Creationists on the other hand, claim that those species were created from scratch.
So he asks about that claim.

Seems perfectly legit.
His question isn't about life itself. It's about species. The creationist "explanation" just so happens to be about an event that created life itself, in the form of millions of species.

That's on you, not on him.
His question still is only about species.



That's a claim, not an explanation.

The full original title of Darwin's theory----

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

Now--just as soon as you are able to recreate a human from an ape---let us know. For that matter---please be sure and let us know when you create that first ape. When you can create an elephant and an ant from the same primordial sludge--be sure and let us know.
When you can figure out why there is such a thing as love--let us all know. When you can find out why there are males and females instead of just one "thing" that just reproduces itself--I am sure you will let us all in on that one. I wonder what one sludge said to the other on that first meeting--"your place or mine? Or--"maybe we should just split into 2 different types of sludges, male and female, and have a bunch of little sludges?"

You have a claim--not a provable, re-creatable, scientific certainty.

 

[mmksparbud]

Human population never consisted of only 2 humans, as demonstrated by our collective DNA.

Any population that numbers less then 200, furthermore, is as good as doomed to extinction.

And once more here, all you offer is yet another religious assertion.

With our present DNA yes---however---no one knows the DNA of Adam and Eve---they had in them all that God deemed necessary for the proliferation of the species--as did each of those first animals---all of them with the command to reproduce, after their kind. Same thing with Noah, but that needed a few more--He used 8 that time. That DNA has changed over time is obvious.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't believe without proof, because i have proof, at least for myself

There's no such thing as "personal" proof that you can't share with anyone.
The entire point of proof/evidence is that you can share it with others to support your case.

If you can't, then all you have is a belief.

I'm pretty sure my senses are not lying to me

How are you sure about that?

Just to put this in perspective with an extreme example..... your average schizofrenic also is pretty sure that his senses aren't lying to him. So sure that he'll happily comply with the voices in his head saying he should kill his three children.

So, how do you know that your senses aren't playing tricks on you?
I mean, it's not really a secret that senses fail all the time....

Just go to google and type "optical illusion" and click on "images".
You'll see PLENTY of examples of your senses being wrong.

It's not exactly uncommon.......................

, and what i have experienced is real, i bet my life on it.

Funny that you say that you'ld bet your life on it.
It instantly reminded me of the ultimate life-bet: the suicide bomber.
He's pretty sure as well. He's ACTUALLY betting his life on it.

So clearly, it's quite possible to be very very sure about something, to the point that you're even willing to sacrifice your life for it, while being very very wrong about it, right?

Or do you also believe that these bombers are now in paradise living in a golden castle filled with 72 virgins?

But right, is difficult to just believe a random guy telling you this.

I'ld say it is downright impossible.

If you are interested in searching for God

To be honest.... Not more then you are interested in finding Thor.

(which is the most important thing in life)

According to your a priori religious beliefs, that I don't share.

look for him yourself maybe you won't get dissapointed if you invest in it.

Why would I look for your God and not Allah, Visjnoe, Quetzalcoatl, Thor, Odin, Ra, Zeus, ............ or any of the hundreds / thousands of other gods that have been claimed by mankind?

In any case, I've read the bible (and the quran) and concluded it's nonsense from front to back. I don't see how it would be different reading it again - the texts didn't change. Likely it will be even worse, since since then, I've learned a lot more and understand even more how it's nonsense.

I'm sorry, but the ship of Abrahamic gods has already sailed away.
Unless new evidence/data comes up that warrants a second (third, actually) look, I don't see why I would bother. Seems like a gigantic waste of time.

I mean... without new ground breaking evidence:
- Geographers won't be given Flat Earth Theory a second look...
- Astronomers won't be giving astrology or geocentrism a second look...
- Biologists won't be giving creationism a second look...
- ... etc

Why should religion be any different?
Nothing changed since the last time I looked into it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The full original title of Darwin's theory----

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

Now--just as soon as you are able to recreate a human from an ape---let us know.

Spoken like a true scientifically illiterate creationist.

For that matter---please be sure and let us know when you create that first ape. When you can create an elephant and an ant from the same primordial sludge--be sure and let us know.
When you can figure out why there is such a thing as love--let us all know. When you can find out why there are males and females instead of just one "thing" that just reproduces itself--I am sure you will let us all in on that one. I wonder what one sludge said to the other on that first meeting--"your place or mine? Or--"maybe we should just split into 2 different types of sludges, male and female, and have a bunch of little sludges?"

You have a claim--not a provable, re-creatable, scientific certainty.

Evolution theory is a scientific theory that is supported by many independent lines of evidence and contradicted by nonen.

Ow, and also: when you can point us to this god of yours creating anything, or when you can reproduce such creation events---please be sure and let us know

 

[DogmaHunter]

With our present DNA yes---however---no one knows the DNA of Adam and Eve---they had in them all that God deemed necessary for the proliferation of the species--as did each of those first animals---all of them with the command to reproduce, after their kind. Same thing with Noah, but that needed a few more--He used 8 that time. That DNA has changed over time is obvious.

lol

I love how you people invent stuff on the spot, to "explain away" the data of reality, like invoking magical dna and such.

And in the next breath, you complain about us not being able to support scientific theories (which isn't even true).

It's laughable. And sad.

 

[Jimmy D]

The full original title of Darwin's theory----

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

Now--just as soon as you are able to recreate a human from an ape---let us know. For that matter---please be sure and let us know when you create that first ape. When you can create an elephant and an ant from the same primordial sludge--be sure and let us know.
When you can figure out why there is such a thing as love--let us all know. When you can find out why there are males and females instead of just one "thing" that just reproduces itself--I am sure you will let us all in on that one. I wonder what one sludge said to the other on that first meeting--"your place or mine? Or--"maybe we should just split into 2 different types of sludges, male and female, and have a bunch of little sludges?"

You have a claim--not a provable, re-creatable, scientific certainty.

Weird, why do creationists always feel badmouthing someone else's opinion validates their own?

Wake me up when you've got some positive evidence for miraculous creation events.

 

[pitabread]

You just don't get it----God breathed into it--that was it---His breathe is life. Nothing else.

There has to be something else, because normal breath doesn't work like that. You need to start asking those questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

There has to be something else, because normal breath doesn't work like that. You need to start asking those questions.

We have a term for that: miracle.

miracle, n.

an act of God that bypasses scientific explanation

miraculous, adj.

not by evolution, not by abiogenesis, not by nature, not by science

 

[eleos1954]

Note: Not looking for Bible quotes. I'm well aware what it says in Genesis.

What I want is an explanation beyond what is written in Genesis (or any other religious text) that specifically explains how it is possible to create life forms from scratch. Explain how a creator, supernatural or otherwise, would have created fully-formed life forms on Earth.

Describe the mechanisms, energies, forces, processes, etcs, that are involved in bringing fully-formed organisms into existence.

It's not about "how" it's about "why" it is not disclosed in His Word or otherwise ... we lack the supernatural intelligence to understand it and only God is supernatural.

 

[pitabread]

we lack the supernatural intelligence to understand it

Why do you believe we need 'supernatural' intelligence to understand how life was created?

 

[eleos1954]

Why do you believe we need 'supernatural' intelligence to understand how life was created?

Because the universe vast and is beyond our reach. Such as ....

Earth and the edge of the observable universe is 46 billion light-years (14 billion parsecs), making the diameter of the observable universe about 91 billion light-years (28×109 pc).

 

[pitabread]

Because the universe vast and is beyond our reach.

I'm talking about the creation of life on Earth, not the vastness of the universe.

 

[eleos1954]

I'm talking about the creation of life on Earth, not the vastness of the universe.

God created the universe and everything in it ... In Genesis when God says He created the "heavens and the earth" you think He was talking about "earths heaven"? No ... your concept of God is way way way too small. I know you don't care for scripture ... nor believe it but I need to include a little bit here so you know it's not my "imagination" why I state this.

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.

Hebrews 1:3
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

Psalm 147:4
He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names.

Job 38 (God speaking directly to Job)
"Can you direct the movement of the stars--binding the cluster of the Pleiades or loosening the cords of Orion?

Many more but, I'll stop here.