It seems to me that the creationist argument is just... silly.

[Willtor]

The isssue is that it takes more faith to believe in evolution theory than it takes to believe in God.

Well, when the Miller-Urey experiment is discussed, evolution is not what's being discussed. But, in any case, I don't think this is correct. After all, God can only be known by faith. Evolution can be known by evidence and reason.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan, perhaps I'm wrong (and I want to be deferential), but I can't help but think that this last argument is a smokescreen for something else. Let me put it in the following form:

You observe that scientists have not been able to make life appear in the lab, and you say this is a weakness of abiogenesis as a principle.

They claim it happens all on its own. No need for the lab to force it along.

Rain also falls all on its on - and we can do that artificially in the lab -- no need to wait for weather conditions. Funny thing about stuff that "happens on its own" when it comes to dust, rocks and gas... it is easy to reproduce.

That includes manufacturing diamonds and making oil.

But every field has had to surmount that learning curve. Every one. Is this something where, if they successfully demonstrate it in the lab, your faith is going to be shaken? I hope your faith is not founded in scientists' present inability to make life in the lab. So, what really is the issue?

To "imagine" what cannot be demonstrated to be true - and then ask me if I am just a little intimidated by that "imagination" is illusive logic (It is an argument from the void of "facts not in evidence" -- composed entirely of speculating that in the future the atheist evolutionists will have their much needed proof)

Seriously???

God alone can create life - ...

Darwin "imagined" that the cell was nothing more than "protoplasm" and would be "easy to contrive" or "evolve" or "form naturally on its own" ...

Only to find out that the cell is almost infinitely complex. Instead of the solution drawing nearer over time - facts, science and discovery show that the problem became many orders of magnitude larger over time -- the more knowledge the farther the solution outdistanced our science.

At some point - accepting the Bible - was the better choice.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Well, when the Miller-Urey experiment is discussed, evolution is not what's being discussed. But, in any case, I don't think this is correct. After all, God can only be known by faith. Evolution can be known by evidence and reason.

The OP brings in up - along with abiogenesis -- and when Miller-Urey is being discussed - abiogenesis is being discussed.

For those who want to "imagine" that the evolutionist text book says "in the beginning God instantly spoke prokaryote cells into existence on planet earth and then evolution took over" -- well they are welcome to that sweet fiction. But as it turns out that is not how the evolution "story" goes.

Hence - the Miller-Urey experiment.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

... and great theologians like St. Athanasius and St. Augustine. Them too.

Again, maybe they were wrong, but flippancy does more harm than help when you argue against taking Genesis figuratively.

Augustine argued that 6 days was wayyy too long.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

I think some of these people knew the Scriptures a lot better than you. It doesn't mean they were right to take it figuratively, but it does mean that you're wrong to write off the interpretation with such flippancy.

I don't follow your argument given that all the Hebrew and OT Scholars in all world class universities know that the T.E. bending of the text of Genesis to fit their outside agenda -- cannot be taken seriously by anyone familiar with the literature being discussed. They do not argue the point from the context of faith in the Bible - rather the opposite. They have no faith in the bible to be "served" in their evaluation of the literature.

And their conclusion is unanimous.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Blue Wren]

The topic I wanted to make was "It seems to me that the creationist argument is 'my Bible beats your mountains of empirical data!'", but it wouldn't fit.

Honestly, there's just so much evidence for evolution and an old earth and all that stuff; to be a creationist, you have to deny radioactive decay, half-life dating (e.g. potassium-argon or strobidium-brontium dating), relative dating, everything we know about astrophysics and the formation of the universe, and almost all of biology, including observed instances of speciation. In essence, you must deny the large majority of astrophysics, regular physics, biology, geology, archaeology, chemistry, medicine... a huge amount of observable facts that directly disprove the claims of those who believe that Genesis is a literal, historical account.

The thing is, it's up to the one making the positive claim to substantiate it*; science disagrees with the Bible, and since the Bible can't come up with anywhere near as many things as physical evidence of its claims than science can, in a contest of science versus the Bible, science wins.

*You have to prove the positive claim simply because you can't disprove something without a contradicting positive. I don't believe in an invisible unicorn because there is no evidence for such, and I don't believe in a literal Genesis account because there is both no evhttp://www.christianforums.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=143idence to support it and a great deal of evidence which contradicts it.

At this point, creationism has been virtually destroyed within the scientific community due to the vast amount of data. The Devil in Dover (about the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial re: teaching evolution in schools in '06), Your Inner Fish (about how we're all just evolved fish), and Dawkins' Why Evolution Is True all make really great arguments, if anyone wants to read them; I'm not a fan of his anti-religion stuff, but he makes some great arguments and is an evolutionary biologist, and he really knows his stuff when he's talking about the field he has a doctorate in.

I really love this quote from Pope Francis, though I am not a Catholic and disagree with a huge amount of their doctrines: "God is not a magician with a magic wand." He works within our universe; he may have created the world ex nihilo, but that doesn't mean that His works in the world after that were all done in a similar fashion. He doesn't have to create everything in such a fashion; rather, he seems to set up systems to work independently of him, such as the weather cycle, and because he interacts and changes things within the universe, we can see his effects on said universe.

I'm not a theistic evolutionist, per se, because I think that evolution and theology are completely separate subjects; rather, I think God put in place the system that caused humanity to be created, including the processes of evolution and abiogenesis.

Wikipedia has an absurdly good page on abiogenesis and how it occurred; I couldn't find anything nearly this solid on Google, though I typically look for non-Wikipedia stuff to link to people when discussing science.

The New England Complex Systems Institude has a great page on evolution.

Berkeley.edu has a fantastic page on speciation and observed instances of it.

You also may want to check out the Wedge Strategy, a strategy by the Discovery Institute which essentially is trying to "lie in the service of the truth". There's a reason that they refused to testify over the validity of creationism in science in the Dover trial: it's because they know it's a lie and they're just scumbags who make loads of money off of other people's ignorance and/or gullibility. (It was a really great chance to try to bring creationism into the main stream.).

Creationism, it is very much a US-centric belief. I'm Swedish. It's foreign to us. Christians in Sweden, we do not believe, in creationism, no. Schools in Sweden, even Christian ones, they cannot teach creationism in science classes. In religious classes, perhaps, yes. As science, no. This is forbidden. Schooling from the home, that is illegal, also. I have tried to understand, creationism, since coming to the US. Where I am living, it is nonexistent, also. People, they are more aware of it, in the US, even without believing it themselves. I am glad, this is not something, we have to give any of our time to, in Sweden. I know, in the US, it is more of a problem, with people wanting it to be taught to children, in place of proper science. That is unfortunate.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

So then Christians that believe what the Bible actually says - have probably "noticed".

Creationism, it is very much a US-centric belief. I'm Swedish. It's foreign to us. Christians in Sweden, we do not believe, in creationism, no. Schools in Sweden, even Christian ones, they cannot teach creationism in science classes. In religious classes, perhaps, yes. As science, no. This is forbidden. Schooling from the home, that is illegal, also. I have tried to understand, creationism, since coming to the US. Where I am living, it is nonexistent, also.

I happen to know a number of people born and raised in Sweden that are creationists.

Not saying you are wrong about the people you have met though.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Willtor]

They claim it happens all on its own. No need for the lab to force it along.

Rain also falls all on its on - and we can do that artificially in the lab -- no need to wait for weather conditions. Funny thing about stuff that "happens on its own" when it comes to dust, rocks and gas... it is easy to reproduce.

That includes manufacturing diamonds and making oil.




You "imagine" what cannot be demonstrated to be true - and then ask me if I am just a little intimidated by your "imagination"??

Seriously???

God alone can create life - ...

Darwin "imagined" that the cell was nothing more than "protoplasm" and would be "easy to contrive" or "evolve" or "form naturally on its own" ...

Only to find out that the cell is almost infinitely complex. Instead of the solution drawing nearer over time - facts, science and discovery show that the problem became many orders of magnitude larger over time -- the more knowledge the farther the solution outdistanced our science.

At some point - accepting the Bible - was the better choice.

in Christ,

Bob

This doesn't even remotely respond to what I said or asked. Are you trying to have an honest discussion or are you trying to score points?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan, perhaps I'm wrong (and I want to be deferential), but I can't help but think that this last argument is a smokescreen for something else. Let me put it in the following form:

You observe that scientists have not been able to make life appear in the lab, and you say this is a weakness of abiogenesis as a principle.

They claim it happens all on its own. No need for the lab to force it along.

Rain also falls all on its on - and we can do that artificially in the lab -- no need to wait for weather conditions. Funny thing about stuff that "happens on its own" when it comes to dust, rocks and gas... it is easy to reproduce.

That includes manufacturing diamonds and making oil.

But every field has had to surmount that learning curve. Every one. Is this something where, if they successfully demonstrate it in the lab, your faith is going to be shaken? I hope your faith is not founded in scientists' present inability to make life in the lab. So, what really is the issue?

To "imagine" what cannot be demonstrated to be true - and then ask me if I am just a little intimidated by that "imagination" is illusive logic (It is an argument from the void of "facts not in evidence" -- composed entirely of speculating that in the future the atheist evolutionists will have their much needed proof)

Seriously???

God alone can create life - ...

Darwin "imagined" that the cell was nothing more than "protoplasm" and would be "easy to contrive" or "evolve" or "form naturally on its own" ...

Only to find out that the cell is almost infinitely complex. Instead of the solution drawing nearer over time - facts, science and discovery show that the problem became many orders of magnitude larger over time -- the more knowledge the farther the solution outdistanced our science.

At some point - accepting the Bible - was the better choice.

This doesn't even remotely respond to what I said or asked. Are you trying to have an honest discussion or are you trying to score points?

I am looking at the salient point in your post - and showing that it does not hold up to close review.

Inconvenient for that post -- possibly. But it reveals a gap that anyone who reads the post will notice.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Willtor]

I am looking at the salient point in your post - and showing that it does not hold up to close review.

Inconvenient for that post -- possibly. But it reveals a gap that anyone who reads the post will notice.

in Christ,

Bob

This is totally unrelated to the salient point in my post. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Let me restate:

You observed that scientists have been unable to make life in the lab. Maybe it was a throw-away point that doesn't actually matter to anything. Was it unimportant?

 

[KWCrazy]

Creationism, it is very much a US-centric belief.

Not true.

I'm Swedish.

We won't hold that against you. We love you anyway.

It's foreign to us. Christians in Sweden, we do not believe, in creationism,

Christ believed in it. Christ believed in every word of the Scriptures.
Mark 10:6 " But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.'
Mark 13:9 " For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be."
Luke 11:50-51 "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.'
John 5: 45-47 " Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

Jesus also confirmed the story of Cain and Able, The Great Flood, Lot and his wife, the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, the miracles of Elijah, the story of Jonah and many other miracles you probably reject as well.

By what standard do you accept some miracles and deny the rest? There are 333 miracles chronicled in the Bible; which do you believe and which do you reject; and why? Nothing in the Scriptures teaches us to distrust the Scriptures. Jesus said "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."

Why do you disregard His words?

 

[Blue Wren]

Not true.

We won't hold that against you. We love you anyway.

Christ believed in it. Christ believed in every word of the Scriptures.
Mark 10:6 " But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.'
Mark 13:9 " For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be."
Luke 11:50-51 "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.'
John 5: 45-47 " Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

Jesus also confirmed the story of Cain and Able, The Great Flood, Lot and his wife, the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, the miracles of Elijah, the story of Jonah and many other miracles you probably reject as well.

By what standard do you accept some miracles and deny the rest? There are 333 miracles chronicled in the Bible; which do you believe and which do you reject; and why? Nothing in the Scriptures teaches us to distrust the Scriptures. Jesus said "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."

Why do you disregard His words?

LOL. Thank-you, for still loving me, even though I'm Swedish.

Creationism very much is US-centric. Do you know, how very rare it is, outside of the US? It was something, that was created, in the US. It is something that we had not heard much of, until recent years with it being talked about, on YouTube and such. Nowhere in the Bible, does it say, the world is less than 10,000 years old, or was made in six 24 hour actual days. It's all just so very silly. It does not honour the Bible or the Lord, at all. He created. That is the whole purpose, of Genesis. To let us know, that God created. It is up, to US, as humans, to learn the details of how. This is what most Christians I have known, in Sweden, and here in the US, believe.

You do not need to take, every single word, as actual, to believe in the meaning, of what is said in the Bible. You can see big differences in the words, just in comparing the 2000 Swedish translation of the Bible, the older Swedish translation, and the ones that in English.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan, perhaps I'm wrong (and I want to be deferential), but I can't help but think that this last argument is a smokescreen for something else. Let me put it in the following form:

You observe that scientists have not been able to make life appear in the lab, and you say this is a weakness of abiogenesis as a principle.

They claim it happens all on its own. No need for the lab to force it along.

Rain also falls all on its on - and we can do that artificially in the lab -- no need to wait for weather conditions. Funny thing about stuff that "happens on its own" when it comes to dust, rocks and gas... it is easy to reproduce.

That includes manufacturing diamonds and making oil.

But every field has had to surmount that learning curve. Every one. Is this something where, if they successfully demonstrate it in the lab, your faith is going to be shaken? I hope your faith is not founded in scientists' present inability to make life in the lab. So, what really is the issue?

To "imagine" what cannot be demonstrated to be true - and then ask me if I am just a little intimidated by that "imagination" is illusive logic (It is an argument from the void of "facts not in evidence" -- composed entirely of speculating that in the future the atheist evolutionists will have their much needed proof)

Seriously???

God alone can create life - ...

Darwin "imagined" that the cell was nothing more than "protoplasm" and would be "easy to contrive" or "evolve" or "form naturally on its own" ...

Only to find out that the cell is almost infinitely complex. Instead of the solution drawing nearer over time - facts, science and discovery show that the problem became many orders of magnitude larger over time -- the more knowledge the farther the solution outdistanced our science.

At some point - accepting the Bible - was the better choice.

This doesn't even remotely respond to what I said or asked. Are you trying to have an honest discussion or are you trying to score points?

I am looking at the salient point in your post - and showing that it does not hold up to close review.

Inconvenient for that post -- possibly. But it reveals a gap that anyone who reads the post will notice.

This is totally unrelated to the salient point in my post. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Let me restate:

You observed that scientists have been unable to make life in the lab. Maybe it was a throw-away point that doesn't actually matter to anything. Was it unimportant?

You mention abiogenesis - so also does the OP in favor of evolution.


You say it should not be thought about when considering evolution because it is not evolution. Yet the OP and Urey-Miller all evolutionists trying to promote evolution - none of them start evolution with "God spoke and prokaryote was -- after that they evolved into horses".

The point is obvious - they need a starting point and not a one of them says it is "God spoke and prokaryote was".

As for their fictions and fantasies about rocks, dust and gas turning in to prokaryotes - well it is a "story easy enough to tell but it is not science" as Collin Patterson said of their fossil record "stories" about "how one thing came from another".

And he did that as an evolutionist.

I did not insert "Abiogenesis" into the OP or into your post - you did it in your own post -and the author of this thread did it in the OP.

You have yet to explain how 'prokaryote genesis' is supposedly an inherent feature of rocks, dust, gas, and sunlight -- or are you claiming that all evolutionist text books claim that "God spoke and it was"???

What "other" claims are you aware of -- that are being made for rocks, dust, gas and sunlight -- that cannot be manufactured in the lab?

even one???

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Willtor]

...

You have yet to explain how 'prokaryote genesis' is supposedly an inherent feature of rocks, dust, gas, and sunlight -- or are you claiming that all evolutionist text books claim that "God spoke and it was"???

What "other" claims are you aware of -- that are being made for rocks, dust, gas and sunlight -- that cannot be manufactured in the lab?

even one???

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

And your faith hinges on this? To put it another way, if they succeed in making life from non-life in the lab, you will lose your faith?

 

[KWCrazy]

To put it another way, if they succeed in making life from non-life in the lab, you will lose your faith?

If a person learns to assemble a car with all the existing parts readily available to him, that's a good thing. Can a man assemble that same car without any parts? If we understand the building blocks of life and some day manage to recreate it, does that make us equal to the Creator who not only designed the end product but also all the components?

Evolution is a joke. It requires ever increasing complexity; a process which has never been observed in nature. It claims as it's driving force benevolent mutations which somehow twist and rearrange genetic material to acquire new traits and encode them to the reproductive system. Again, this has never been observed in nature.

Miller-Urey showed that under perfectly controlled circumstances that do not exist and likely never existed in nature, you can produce amino acids which are considered building blocks of life. The amino acids produced could not possibly be used to create life, however, because they were in equal number left handed and right handed; left handed supports life and right handed destroys it. Since oxygen could not be present for the experiment to work, evolutionist not insist that in the early stages of its development oxygen did not exist on the earth. The driving force of evolution appears to be, "It must have been, so it was."

There are no scientifically viable theories of origination. Each new theory must ignore some element of natural law to make it viable. It is not established science fact. Those who claim it is are simply lying. It is an accepted theory because at the moment there is no other and it kinds fits if you twist it enough and force it. No, I'll stick with the word of the Lord. If His word is true than it's all true; if false then it's all fault. Either no miracles are possible or all His miracles are possible. Those who pick and choose what to believe do so without the support of science or the Scriptures. If your god is this world and not its creator, then you must believe that its laws are absolute. Men do not return from being three days dead. If your God is the Creator and can do the impossible, then no claim in the Bible is beyond rational acceptance. What makes no sense is this picking and choosing which miracle to believe and which to reject.

Frankly, it seems to me that the theistic evolutionist argument is silly. The evolution argument is just plain wrong.

 

[Willtor]

If a person learns to assemble a car with all the existing parts readily available to him, that's a good thing. Can a man assemble that same car without any parts? If we understand the building blocks of life and some day manage to recreate it, does that make us equal to the Creator who not only designed the end product but also all the components?

I'm going to take this as a "no", your faith would not be challenged if they did. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But this begs the question: why observe that they haven't done it, yet, as a part of your argument? If they ever do (and maybe they won't) it pushes you back. When you say there was no abiogenesis, can you restate your argument in a way that gets at the core of your objection? My intuition is that it has to do with your interpretation of Genesis, and that whether they show that it _could_ have happened in nature is irrelevant. But I'm open to being corrected.

Evolution is a joke. It requires ever increasing complexity; a process which has never been observed in nature. It claims as it's driving force benevolent mutations which somehow twist and rearrange genetic material to acquire new traits and encode them to the reproductive system. Again, this has never been observed in nature.

Miller-Urey showed that under perfectly controlled circumstances that do not exist and likely never existed in nature, you can produce amino acids which are considered building blocks of life. The amino acids produced could not possibly be used to create life, however, because they were in equal number left handed and right handed; left handed supports life and right handed destroys it. Since oxygen could not be present for the experiment to work, evolutionist not insist that in the early stages of its development oxygen did not exist on the earth. The driving force of evolution appears to be, "It must have been, so it was."

There are no scientifically viable theories of origination. Each new theory must ignore some element of natural law to make it viable. It is not established science fact. Those who claim it is are simply lying. It is an accepted theory because at the moment there is no other and it kinds fits if you twist it enough and force it. No, I'll stick with the word of the Lord. If His word is true than it's all true; if false then it's all fault. Either no miracles are possible or all His miracles are possible. Those who pick and choose what to believe do so without the support of science or the Scriptures. If your god is this world and not its creator, then you must believe that its laws are absolute. Men do not return from being three days dead. If your God is the Creator and can do the impossible, then no claim in the Bible is beyond rational acceptance. What makes no sense is this picking and choosing which miracle to believe and which to reject.

Frankly, it seems to me that the theistic evolutionist argument is silly. The evolution argument is just plain wrong.

I want to stick to the topic of abiogenesis or the posts are going to become ridiculously long and disconnected. Until that topic is discussed a bit more, you can consider evolution conceded.

 

[KWCrazy]

.... why observe that they haven't done it, yet, as a part of your argument?

Many people misunderstand what miller Urey demonstrated. By showing that in nature left handed and right handed amino acids are formed in equal numbers, they affirmed that the very process of abiogenesis touted as the spark of life could not have happened because of the right handed amino acids. I'm simply pointing out that the experiment more disproves abiogenesis than proves it.

Secondly, correlation is not causation. If I could complete replicate a process of evolution from amino acids to self replicating multi-cellular entities, it still would not prove that such a process was how we came about. It could provide an alternative viewpoint, but it still can never disprove the creation account in Genesis. Science is the study of natural laws. It cannot account for, cannot prove and cannot disprove the supernatural. My issue is not with the theory or the science behind it, but rather with the self assured way that those who believe in it attempt to proclaim that it is established fact. It is not. I find it amusing sometime when people of inferior intellect and substandard education attempt to portray themselves as more enlightened than I because I have a different life experience which has led me to understand that the Scriptures ARE the word of God and that what so many believe as reality is only a temporary construct which will one day be destroyed.

Known natural law concedes that the origination of anything is impossible. Theories of origination must somehow find exception to the fact that neither life nor matter nor energy can come into existence without and outside source. It all comes down to whether you believe in a science which must ignore it's own limitations or a Creator who has no limitations. Having been blessed to have found the Creator, I can only hope that the others here do as well.

 

[miamited]

Hi audacious,

God has said that his righteous ones shall live by faith, yet in our world today, no one wants to live by just faith. It's always faith only in what man can't prove.

God's word also tells us quite clearly that the things of God seem as foolishness to men.

In the Revelation of Jesus we are warned of this number '666'. The Scriptures tell us that this is the number of man. For me, there seems to be a fairly valid argument that this '666' reference is giving us fair warning that each individual will make a choice in this life. He will believe God or he will believe man.

You are, of course, free to believe what your heart 'proves' to you is true, but then we must also consider that our heart is wicked. There seems to be ample evidence in the Scriptures that our heart can be one of our greatest enemies.

So, I just hope that you will take all of this into consideration when you make your decisions about who or what you will believe.

The Revelation also tells us that no unbeliever will be given access to the kingdom of God. Of course, then we get into debate and discussion as to what it really means to 'believe' as God asks of His children. For me, I believe that God has told us the truth about these particular issues that you bring up. He has had it written down and He knows that He has told us the truth. He has allowed several 'proofs' that He understands and wants us to understand what the word 'day' means. He has painstakingly listed a fairly complete lineage that we can follow from the first man Adam to our present day. He has given us father's names who begat sons by name and counted off the years of their lives.

So, the question must be asked. If God has told us the truth; if He has included the descriptors of the 'days of creation' and the lineage of man for the express purpose that, if we want to, we can be reasonably assured that it all lines up. Are we, am I, an unbeliever or a believer? Am I faithful or unfaithful if I choose to believe the 'truth' of man as opposed to the truth of God.

I believe that when Jesus spoke unto the crowd in Israel and told them that if they wanted to inherit the kingdom of God that they must become like these little ones, that it was this very issue of belief and faith that he was referring to. Children don't need to have 'proofs' lined up before them to believe something. All they need is that their mother or father tell them that something is true, and they will believe. As born again believers, children of God, I believe that God also asks us to believe Him in all that He has told us.

Remember, my friend, Nicodemus had spent his entire adult life chasing religious wisdom and knowledge and believed that all God wanted was that we follow a set of rules. Why did he believe this? Because since childhood and throughout his years of learning and then later in his adult life it was what men had told him God wanted of him. Yet, Jesus spoke very clearly to his lack of understanding and his need to be born again if he wanted to inherit the kingdom of God. The Scriptures tell us that we are destroyed by our lack of understanding.

So, let me ask just a few simple questions. Why don't you believe that God created everything just as He has told you? Why don't you believe that the first man who stepped foot upon this earth was a man by the name of Adam whom God fashioned out of the very dirt of the earth and gave that molded form life by putting breath into his lungs? Why don't you believe that God fashioned this entire realm in which we live in 6 simple days and that on the 6th day He made the first man Adam? Why don't you believe that you can count out all those years of life from Adam to Noah and know how long it was from Adam's life to Noah's life? Is it at all possible that you aren't able to live by faith?

It does have eternal consequences.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Many people misunderstand what miller Urey demonstrated. By showing that in nature left handed and right handed amino acids are formed in equal numbers, they affirmed that the very process of abiogenesis touted as the spark of life could not have happened because of the right handed amino acids. I'm simply pointing out that the experiment more disproves abiogenesis than proves it.

What's the problem with amino acids of different chirality being generated?

Secondly, correlation is not causation. If I could complete replicate a process of evolution from amino acids to self replicating multi-cellular entities, it still would not prove that such a process was how we came about. It could provide an alternative viewpoint, but it still can never disprove the creation account in Genesis. Science is the study of natural laws. It cannot account for, cannot prove and cannot disprove the supernatural. My issue is not with the theory or the science behind it, but rather with the self assured way that those who believe in it attempt to proclaim that it is established fact. It is not. I find it amusing sometime when people of inferior intellect and substandard education attempt to portray themselves as more enlightened than I because I have a different life experience which has led me to understand that the Scriptures ARE the word of God and that what so many believe as reality is only a temporary construct which will one day be destroyed.

Known natural law concedes that the origination of anything is impossible. Theories of origination must somehow find exception to the fact that neither life nor matter nor energy can come into existence without and outside source. It all comes down to whether you believe in a science which must ignore it's own limitations or a Creator who has no limitations. Having been blessed to have found the Creator, I can only hope that the others here do as well.

Aside: Again, you mention evolution, which I've already conceded... unless that's the topic you want to discuss, instead. But the conversation will just get bogged down unless we can restrict the conversation to one of them.

As it turns out, abiogenesis doesn't deal with where the original elements came from. That's a different field of study. Abiogenesis supposes the preexistence of non-biological chemicals. If you'd like, I will concede the special creation of non-biological chemicals prior to abiogenesis for the purposes of this discussion. As with evolution, I don't think it's necessary to concede it, but if that's the only way we can focus...

Showing that abiogenesis could have happened is all that I'm concerned with for the moment, because some of your points have been targeted at that. Once that point is reached, we can move on... unless you don't particularly care whether it could have happened, in which case you could choose to concede the point.

 

[KWCrazy]

What's the problem with amino acids of different chirality being generated?

The simplest possible life form requires 200 proteins, all of which must be formed from left handed amino acids. A 50/50 mix can never support life, let alone instigate it. The odds against it happening make it a mathematical impossibility.

As it turns out, abiogenesis doesn't deal with where the original elements came from. That's a different field of study.

How convenient to be able to begin a ladder with the second step. However, without a first step there can never be a second.

Showing that abiogenesis could have happened is all that I'm concerned with for the moment, because some of your points have been targeted at that.

It can't happen, and even if it could, it wouldn't mean it did. Miller Urey demonstrated that by using conditions that couldn't exist in nature we can't replicate something that is supposed to have happened randomly in a swamp. It's akin to saying that combining oxygen with hydrogen can produce water, therefore we know that it's likely for tidal waves to form in the desert from elements already in the environment.