Time and the first living "thing"

[Brightmoon]

Er... no. You can read about how God created things in Genesis.

. That’s an opinion. In science we call it a hypothesis. If we’re able to confirm or disconfirm an hypothesis, then we get facts . If we get an untestable hypothesis like God created then it stays an opinion not a fact. It’s my opinion as a Christian that God created the universe. As a scientifically literate person I wouldn’t be able to confirm that as a fact. Scientists basically leave this issue alone as they really cannot answer the question of how or if God does anything.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

. That’s an opinion. In science we call it a hypothesis. If we’re able to confirm or disconfirm an hypothesis, then we get facts . If we get an untestable hypothesis like God created then it stays an opinion not a fact. It’s my opinion as a Christian that God created the universe. As a scientifically literate person I wouldn’t be able to confirm that as a fact. Scientists basically leave this issue alone as they really cannot answer the question of how or if God does anything.

That God created all that exists is Truth. Should science suggest otherwise, it is the science that is to be discarded.

 

[Brightmoon]

That God created all that exists is Truth. Should scuence suggest otherwise, it is the science that is to be discarded.

Galileo ran into the same ignorant arrogance from the church 500 years ago and it didn’t stop Galileo from being correct about a heliocentric orbits. Ignorant arrogance didn’t stop Hutton or Lyell from being correct about the ancient age of the earth . Nor did it stop Darwin from finding out the truth about how life changes over time and about how life is all related . We have 150 years worth of advanced knowledge that none of these people had and I see no good reason to discard real knowledge in favor of a somewhat disjointed story that only makes sense as a religious based numerology tract

 

[Tone]

if you see deities I’d probably assume you were schizophrenic . If you ask a scientist you get a scientific answer

I see verifiable evidence as I look out my window...inside too...

 

[Resha Caner]

When the first "thing" came to life, was it destined to die, or is it still alive? Is the first living thing still alive among us somewhere?

If the first thing died, how much time elapsed between the first thing and the second thing? Then there's the third, fourth, fifth, etc. Seems like all of that would have taken an extraordinary amount of time before a thing then came along that could reproduce. Are the offspring of the first reproductive thing still alive or were they programmed to die?

Fast forward to today. I saw a video last night of a salamander yawning underwater. So, salamanders apparently yawn. People yawn. If both salamanders and people yawn, how far back do we need to go to find the first yawning thing that would be the common ancestor of man and salamanders? Or did yawning develop later in parallel?

Then, how much time passed between the first reproducing thing and the first yawning thing?

I'm not sure what yawning has to do with dying, so the 2 questions seem random and unrelated. If you're trying to make a connection, I missed it.

Regardless, I didn't see that anyone in the thread gave you a direct answer - at least to the first question. Maybe I missed that too.

To begin, God was the "first living thing", so the answer would be: no, I don't think God was destined to die, and yes, he is still alive. But I assume you're asking about the first life created by God. My view is that all created life faced the possibility of death from the very beginning. However, God provided a way for them (at least Adam and Eve) to live. Due to the Fall, however, that first created thing is almost certainly dead now.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Galileo ran into the same ignorant arrogance from the church 500 years ago and it didn’t stop Galileo from being correct about a heliocentric orbits. Ignorant arrogance didn’t stop Hutton or Lyell from being correct about the ancient age of the earth . Nor did it stop Darwin from finding out the truth about how life changes over time and about how life is all related . We have 150 years worth of advanced knowledge that none of these people had and I see no good reason to discard real knowledge in favor of a somewhat disjointed story that only makes sense as a religious based numerology tract

God has used science at times to give us knowledge.

However, again, anything that runs counter to God's Truth contained in God's inspired Word is to be discarded.

 

[The Barbarian]

I consult the Bible when I want to learn how God did such a significant action as creating all that exists.

He doesn't tell us how. Just says He did it.

 

[Brightmoon]

I see verifiable evidence as I look out my window...inside too...

I look out my window and I see relatives - mostly other eucaryotes, mainly plants and animals and the inanimate things that one of the eucaryote species has built.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

I look out my window and I see relatives - mostly other eucaryotes, mainly plants and animals and the inanimate things that one of the eucaryote species has built.

All beautifully created by God.

 

[Brightmoon]

All beautifully created by God.

all beautifully created as relatives by God

 

[Tone]

an untestable hypothesis like God created

Isn't this statement a proof in and of itself? It's untestable, because He cannot be put under a microscope...because, He is not created.

What you do have to put under the microscope and in tubes, or whatever, are the created substances...this is exactly how it should be, seeing that we ourselves are also creatures.

Have you seen an atom...or the wind...? No, but, you study the effects of these realities, and you are satisfied...why is it not the same when you study the effects of the Creator?

*I believe everything is putting out a signal as to the existence of the Creator, we just don't have the knowledge and equipment to pick up on these frequencies. But, He is a good Creator and He has designed our minds and bodies with the ability to tap into the only frequency that matters for a relationship with Him, as transmitted through Scripture.But, by all means, keep developing your hypotheses and run them through your tests, if He wants you to decode any other of His communications, He will open the door.

 

[Tone]

Galileo ran into the same ignorant arrogance from the church 500 years ago and it didn’t stop Galileo from being correct about a heliocentric orbits. Ignorant arrogance didn’t stop Hutton or Lyell from being correct about the ancient age of the earth . Nor did it stop Darwin from finding out the truth about how life changes over time and about how life is all related . We have 150 years worth of advanced knowledge that none of these people had and I see no good reason to discard real knowledge in favor of a somewhat disjointed story that only makes sense as a religious based numerology tract

All these are subject to change.

 

[section9+1]

I look out my window and I see relatives - mostly other eucaryotes, mainly plants and animals and the inanimate things that one of the eucaryote species has built.

Maybe you see your relatives, but I don't see mine.

 

[Tone]

Maybe you see your relatives, but I don't see mine.

You should have invited them over for dinner.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

. I prefer to look at God’s Creation directly . That’s what scientists do

I look at both.

 

[section9+1]

You should have invited them over for dinner.

I've had lots of his relatives over for dinner. As the main course.

 

[Brightmoon]

Maybe you see your relatives, but I don't see mine.

. Wilful ignorance can be fun ......until it harms you

 

[Brightmoon]

Isn't this statement a proof in and of itself? It's untestable, because He cannot be put under a microscope...because, He is not created.

What you do have to put under the microscope and in tubes, or whatever, are the created substances...this is exactly how it should be, seeing that we ourselves are also creatures.

Have you seen an atom...or the wind...? No, but, you study the effects of these realities, and you are satisfied...why is it not the same when you study the effects of the Creator?

*I believe everything is putting out a signal as to the existence of the Creator, we just don't have the knowledge and equipment to pick up on these frequencies. But, He is a good Creator and He has designed our minds and bodies with the ability to tap into the only frequency that matters for a relationship with Him, as transmitted through Scripture.But, by all means, keep developing your hypotheses and run them through your tests, if He wants you to decode any other of His communications, He will open the door.

oh I believe God created the universe . But under the processes of science we’re aren’t able to confirm that . It’s an untestable hypotheses the Bible is also wrong on a lot of natural phenomena so I have no reason to trust that it’s going to accurate

 

[section9+1]

No one alive was there at the beginning except the one who did it. I'd just as soon believe his account as those who came much later. When the bible says God loves you that is also untestable. Why should you believe it?

 

[Brightmoon]

No one alive was there at the beginning except the one who did it. I'd just as soon believe his account as those who came much later. When the bible says God loves you that is also untestable. Why should you believe it?

here you go with that ridiculous “were you there?“ nonsense . Were you there when those wildfires started in California ? How do you know that they occurred ? I’ll give you an example of what the early earth was like and why we know this . Pyrite (fools gold) is a mineral that doesn’t stick around long under an atmosphere with a lot of oxygen in it . A small rock might last a few decades at most. We find prehistoric sandstone (which is literally made of sand) with pyrite sand in it. Sand doesn’t form underground, it forms on the surface touching the atmosphere . There are also other minerals with the same characteristics (like uranite )that we find in early earth era sandstones . This is ONE reason we know that the early earth had very little oxygen in the atmosphere