BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

---

1) Your line of thought on #1 basically reads as though you'd say God directed evolution. In some basic sense, we'd agree then. Evolution, by definition, uses an existing template and modifies it through time. No, it is not particularly interesting that ribs contain stem cells, seeing as other bones and several other tissues do as well, and that such stem cells are critical to replacement of aging cells.

2) I feel like you've missed my point and in what context I said it did or didn't matter. If it matters to you for different reasons, of course I have no issue there.

---

The point in #1 was that studying DNA further in the way you described in no way makes it appear less designed. That is a logically flawed conclusion. You were trying to argue that the presence of vestigial DNA that appears to be designed makes it appear that the DNA is NOT designed. That reasoning is oxymoronic.

And the interesting part about Adam's rib was not merely that it contained pluripotent stem cells, but that the creation story has God choosing that particular part of Adam's body that did contain these cells, thus giving the story scientific consistency.

---

There is no scientific consistency in the theological story of Adam. The story of Adam in neither of the two conflicting creation stories has no valid scientific basis and is contradictory to everything we have learned through science.

---

A statement that reflects neither an understanding of the creation story, nor of science.

---

No, just a factual observation.

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

---

1) Your line of thought on #1 basically reads as though you'd say God directed evolution. In some basic sense, we'd agree then. Evolution, by definition, uses an existing template and modifies it through time. No, it is not particularly interesting that ribs contain stem cells, seeing as other bones and several other tissues do as well, and that such stem cells are critical to replacement of aging cells.

2) I feel like you've missed my point and in what context I said it did or didn't matter. If it matters to you for different reasons, of course I have no issue there.

---

The point in #1 was that studying DNA further in the way you described in no way makes it appear less designed. That is a logically flawed conclusion. You were trying to argue that the presence of vestigial DNA that appears to be designed makes it appear that the DNA is NOT designed. That reasoning is oxymoronic.

And the interesting part about Adam's rib was not merely that it contained pluripotent stem cells, but that the creation story has God choosing that particular part of Adam's body that did contain these cells, thus giving the story scientific consistency.

---

There is no scientific consistency in the theological story of Adam. The story of Adam in neither of the two conflicting creation stories has no valid scientific basis and is contradictory to everything we have learned through science.

---

A statement that reflects neither an understanding of the creation story, nor of science.

---

No, just a factual observation.

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of Chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image.

---

You are looking at poetry as evidence? Really?

Your supposed to be a smart individual. Please show it.

---

If you are addressing me, I am looking at the evidence of reality to discredit the story in the 'poetry' you believe is factual. What I was asked to do. What is smarter, relying on the scientific evidence of reality or primitive poetry which we objectively know can't be true?

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Americans should no longer be allowed to reproduce. We have become way too stupid!

---

Good think illegals have far higher birth rates than Americans .

Look at all the great things their masses have accomplished throughout Central America .

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Americans should no longer be allowed to reproduce. We have become way too stupid!

---

Good think illegals have far higher birth rates than Americans .

Look at all the great things their masses have accomplished throughout Central America .

---

Doesn't the Catholic Church encourage high birth rates in those countries?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

---

1) Your line of thought on #1 basically reads as though you'd say God directed evolution. In some basic sense, we'd agree then. Evolution, by definition, uses an existing template and modifies it through time. No, it is not particularly interesting that ribs contain stem cells, seeing as other bones and several other tissues do as well, and that such stem cells are critical to replacement of aging cells.

2) I feel like you've missed my point and in what context I said it did or didn't matter. If it matters to you for different reasons, of course I have no issue there.

---

The point in #1 was that studying DNA further in the way you described in no way makes it appear less designed. That is a logically flawed conclusion. You were trying to argue that the presence of vestigial DNA that appears to be designed makes it appear that the DNA is NOT designed. That reasoning is oxymoronic.

And the interesting part about Adam's rib was not merely that it contained pluripotent stem cells, but that the creation story has God choosing that particular part of Adam's body that did contain these cells, thus giving the story scientific consistency.

---

There is no scientific consistency in the theological story of Adam. The story of Adam in neither of the two conflicting creation stories has no valid scientific basis and is contradictory to everything we have learned through science.

---

A statement that reflects neither an understanding of the creation story, nor of science.

---

No, just a factual observation.

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of Chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image.

---

You are looking at poetry as evidence? Really?

Your supposed to be a smart individual. Please show it.

---

If you are addressing me, I am looking at the evidence of reality to discredit the story in the 'poetry' you believe is factual. What I was asked to do. What is smarter, relying on the scientific evidence of reality or primitive poetry which we objectively know can't be true?

---

TarpDuster asked " What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?" Do you have so little confidence in your view of science that you have to compare it to poetry? Weak Sauce

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

"That's how most people read", is this the new standard, "most people."

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

"That's how most people read", is this the new standard, "most people."

---

Do you think the earth was not present at the beginning of the universe based on Gen 1:1?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

---

1) Your line of thought on #1 basically reads as though you'd say God directed evolution. In some basic sense, we'd agree then. Evolution, by definition, uses an existing template and modifies it through time. No, it is not particularly interesting that ribs contain stem cells, seeing as other bones and several other tissues do as well, and that such stem cells are critical to replacement of aging cells.

2) I feel like you've missed my point and in what context I said it did or didn't matter. If it matters to you for different reasons, of course I have no issue there.

---

The point in #1 was that studying DNA further in the way you described in no way makes it appear less designed. That is a logically flawed conclusion. You were trying to argue that the presence of vestigial DNA that appears to be designed makes it appear that the DNA is NOT designed. That reasoning is oxymoronic.

And the interesting part about Adam's rib was not merely that it contained pluripotent stem cells, but that the creation story has God choosing that particular part of Adam's body that did contain these cells, thus giving the story scientific consistency.

---

There is no scientific consistency in the theological story of Adam. The story of Adam in neither of the two conflicting creation stories has no valid scientific basis and is contradictory to everything we have learned through science.

---

A statement that reflects neither an understanding of the creation story, nor of science.

---

No, just a factual observation.

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of Chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image.

---

You are looking at poetry as evidence? Really?

Your supposed to be a smart individual. Please show it.

---

If you are addressing me, I am looking at the evidence of reality to discredit the story in the 'poetry' you believe is factual. What I was asked to do. What is smarter, relying on the scientific evidence of reality or primitive poetry which we objectively know can't be true?

---

TarpDuster asked " What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?" Do you have so little confidence in your view of science that you have to compare it to poetry? Weak Sauce

---

I just repeated what was said in the post earlier that it was poetry. Note the quotation marks. I personally haven't considered it to be poetry, rather just plain mythology.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

"That's how most people read", is this the new standard, "most people."

---

Do you think the earth was not present at the beginning of the universe based on Gen 1:1?

---

Do I think the earth was not present at the beginning of the universe based on a poem? Is this a real question?

How many other things do you compare to poetry looking for conflicts or, is creation the only thing?

Poetry-literary work in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings and ideas by the use of distinctive style and rhythm

Poetry is not history, science, mathematics or law. Don't read it as such.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

"That's how most people read", is this the new standard, "most people."

---

Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The way I was taught to read English, the earth is the object of what was created in the beginning. I assume the translation is faithful to the Hebrew. The earth wasn't present or created in the beginning, at the beginning, during the beginning, or shortly after the beginning. The creation story is contradictory to everything we know about the physical universe. Organic compounds are not dust. Most of the elements that make up carbon based life were made in stars, not by non evident supernatural beings or being of whom man is the image.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

"That's how most people read", is this the new standard, "most people."

---

Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The way I was taught to read English, the earth is the object of what was created in the beginning. I assume the translation is faithful to the Hebrew. The earth wasn't present or created in the beginning, at the beginning, during the beginning, or shortly after the beginning. The creation story is contradictory to everything we know about the physical universe. Organic compounds are not dust. Most of the elements that make up carbon based life were made in stars, not by non evident supernatural beings or being of whom man is the image.

---

Do you read Charge of the Light Brigade as a historical account or as poetry based on a historical event?

Are legal text books written in sequential order or in an order that makes sense for learning or research? Do you read them as poetry or as a textbook?

Is it wise to read a poem as historical narrative or a science textbook?

Is a science bad poetry or is it not intended to be read as poetry?

Your both being foolish at this point. Show some honesty in your viewpoint.

Genesis 1

Days of Separation and Days of Filling

*Day 1
Light
Darkness
*Day 4
Sun
Moon

*Day 2
Water
Sky
*Day 5
Fish
Birds

*Day 3
Water
Land
Day 6
Plants
Animals
Mankind

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

"That's how most people read", is this the new standard, "most people."

---

Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The way I was taught to read English, the earth is the object of what was created in the beginning. I assume the translation is faithful to the Hebrew. The earth wasn't present or created in the beginning, at the beginning, during the beginning, or shortly after the beginning. The creation story is contradictory to everything we know about the physical universe. Organic compounds are not dust. Most of the elements that make up carbon based life were made in stars, not by non evident supernatural beings or being of whom man is the image.

---

Do you read Charge of the Light Brigade as a historical account or as poetry based on a historical event?

Are legal text books written in sequential order or in an order that makes sense for learning or research? Do you read them as poetry or as a textbook?

Is it wise to read a poem as historical narrative or a science textbook?

Is a science bad poetry or is it not intended to be read as poetry?

Your both being foolish at this point. Show some honesty in your viewpoint.

---

You're welcome to your opinion. BusyTarpDuster raised the point we're dealing with. Honestly.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Americans should no longer be allowed to reproduce. We have become way too stupid!

---

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

"That's how most people read", is this the new standard, "most people."

---

Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The way I was taught to read English, the earth is the object of what was created in the beginning. I assume the translation is faithful to the Hebrew. The earth wasn't present or created in the beginning, at the beginning, during the beginning, or shortly after the beginning. The creation story is contradictory to everything we know about the physical universe. Organic compounds are not dust. Most of the elements that make up carbon based life were made in stars, not by non evident supernatural beings or being of whom man is the image.

---

Do you read Charge of the Light Brigade as a historical account or as poetry based on a historical event?

Are legal text books written in sequential order or in an order that makes sense for learning or research? Do you read them as poetry or as a textbook?

Is it wise to read a poem as historical narrative or a science textbook?

Is a science bad poetry or is it not intended to be read as poetry?

Your both being foolish at this point. Show some honesty in your viewpoint.

---

You're welcome to your opinion. BusyTarpDuster raised the point we're dealing with. Honestly.

---

Well knock yourself out but, before you do. Do you always read poetry as though it is historical narrative or a scientific record? If not, why are you doing it here?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

"That's how most people read", is this the new standard, "most people."

---

Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The way I was taught to read English, the earth is the object of what was created in the beginning. I assume the translation is faithful to the Hebrew. The earth wasn't present or created in the beginning, at the beginning, during the beginning, or shortly after the beginning. The creation story is contradictory to everything we know about the physical universe. Organic compounds are not dust. Most of the elements that make up carbon based life were made in stars, not by non evident supernatural beings or being of whom man is the image.

---

Do you read Charge of the Light Brigade as a historical account or as poetry based on a historical event?

Are legal text books written in sequential order or in an order that makes sense for learning or research? Do you read them as poetry or as a textbook?

Is it wise to read a poem as historical narrative or a science textbook?

Is a science bad poetry or is it not intended to be read as poetry?

Your both being foolish at this point. Show some honesty in your viewpoint.

---

What is your viewpoint? I don't see one in your ramblings.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Genesis 1

Days of Separation and Days of Filling

*Day 1
Light
Darkness
*Day 4
Sun
Moon

*Day 2
Water
Sky
*Day 5
Fish
Birds

*Day 3
Water
Land
Day 6
Plants
Animals
Mankind

---

First of all, the concept of a day is a human concept devised to describe diurnal cycles of light and dark. Second, in the early universe there was no light. Light came about 240,000 to 300,000 years later, before the earth was even formed.The rest is just as erroneous, and certainly space is not filled with water.

Florda_mike said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Americans should no longer be allowed to reproduce. We have become way too stupid!

---

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

---

Have you seen the movie Religulous?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

"That's how most people read", is this the new standard, "most people."

---

Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The way I was taught to read English, the earth is the object of what was created in the beginning. I assume the translation is faithful to the Hebrew. The earth wasn't present or created in the beginning, at the beginning, during the beginning, or shortly after the beginning. The creation story is contradictory to everything we know about the physical universe. Organic compounds are not dust. Most of the elements that make up carbon based life were made in stars, not by non evident supernatural beings or being of whom man is the image.

---

Do you read Charge of the Light Brigade as a historical account or as poetry based on a historical event?

Are legal text books written in sequential order or in an order that makes sense for learning or research? Do you read them as poetry or as a textbook?

Is it wise to read a poem as historical narrative or a science textbook?

Is a science bad poetry or is it not intended to be read as poetry?

Your both being foolish at this point. Show some honesty in your viewpoint.

---

You're welcome to your opinion. BusyTarpDuster raised the point we're dealing with. Honestly.

---

Well knock yourself out but, before you do. Do you always read poetry as though it is historical narrative or a scientific record? If not, why are you doing it here?

---

Read it as a poem for entertainment all you want. As long as you recognize it is on par with the Odyssey. Just don't use it for any meaningful or reliable interpretation of truth or reality.

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Americans should no longer be allowed to reproduce. We have become way too stupid!

---

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

---

Have you seen the movie Religulous?

---

I'm sure you are proud of your starring role in that film, but no, I have not seen that one.

TS: "Read it as a poem for entertainment all you want. As long as you recognize it is on par with the Odyssey. Just don't use it for any meaningful or reliable interpretation of truth or reality."

You may be surprised to learn that poetry, myths and philosophy were created, in large part, to discover and explore truth and reality.

I think you meant to say empirical data, which is sometimes very different in context and application.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Americans should no longer be allowed to reproduce. We have become way too stupid!

---

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

---

Have you seen the movie Religulous?

---

I'm sure you are proud of your starring role in that film, but no, I have not seen that one.

---

I'll check out Religulous and you do Idiocracy?

Florda_mike said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Americans should no longer be allowed to reproduce. We have become way too stupid!

---

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

---

Have you seen the movie Religulous?

---

I'm sure you are proud of your starring role in that film, but no, I have not seen that one.

---

I'll check out Religulous and you do Idiocracy?

---

Nah, I will just watch CNN. Now that Cuomo 2 has to protect his brother Cuomo 1 in the media, it's going to be popcorn time listening to what he uses to cover the crimes.

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

That would be an interesting way to look at it, one I've heard before. But, no, all that is being said is that in its context, "the beginning" is not necessarily referring to the instantaneous moment the universe began to exist. Since the creation story is geocentric in focus, and not cosmologic, "the beginning" can easily refer to the entire time and events from the big bang all the way up to the completion of the formless and void earth, taken as a whole.

There is nothing in the text that asserts any temporal relationship between the birth of the universe and the appearance of the earth. "Most people" who read it this way are free to do so, but must acknowledge this, if they want to be faithful to the text. There was another thread where someone tried to assert that God created Adam and Eve at the same time, simply based on the text that read, "...male and female He created them." The same mistake is being made here with regard to Genesis 1.

I want to be clear, though, that I am not asserting that all those good, faithful Christians who believe that the earth existed at the beginning of the universe are wrong. Who knows, in the end, when we can ask God Himself, we might find out that immediately after the big bang, there was indeed a tiny piece of matter that God kept his eye on and designated as the earth, so technically it would be correct. Who are any of us to say that this didn't happen? Only those with scientific hubris would...except ironically, it would be out of faith, not science!

Oldbear83 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Americans should no longer be allowed to reproduce. We have become way too stupid!

---

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

---

Have you seen the movie Religulous?

---

I'm sure you are proud of your starring role in that film, but no, I have not seen that one.

---

I'll check out Religulous and you do Idiocracy?

---

Nah, I will just watch CNN. Now that Cuomo 2 has to protect his brother Cuomo 1 in the media, it's going to be popcorn time listening to what he uses to cover the crimes.

---

Both deserve death penalty 1000x!

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

"That's how most people read", is this the new standard, "most people."

---

Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The way I was taught to read English, the earth is the object of what was created in the beginning. I assume the translation is faithful to the Hebrew. The earth wasn't present or created in the beginning, at the beginning, during the beginning, or shortly after the beginning. The creation story is contradictory to everything we know about the physical universe. Organic compounds are not dust. Most of the elements that make up carbon based life were made in stars, not by non evident supernatural beings or being of whom man is the image.

---

Do you read Charge of the Light Brigade as a historical account or as poetry based on a historical event?

Are legal text books written in sequential order or in an order that makes sense for learning or research? Do you read them as poetry or as a textbook?

Is it wise to read a poem as historical narrative or a science textbook?

Is a science bad poetry or is it not intended to be read as poetry?

Your both being foolish at this point. Show some honesty in your viewpoint.

---

You're welcome to your opinion. BusyTarpDuster raised the point we're dealing with. Honestly.

---

Well knock yourself out but, before you do. Do you always read poetry as though it is historical narrative or a scientific record? If not, why are you doing it here?

---

Read it as a poem for entertainment all you want. As long as you recognize it is on par with the Odyssey. Just don't use it for any meaningful or reliable interpretation of truth or reality.

---

You always post about two creation accounts in the Bible. If one is poetry, try using the other and then ask yourself the same questions before you ask others.

MT_Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Nucleotides bonded together to make the first RNAs and there's no way something wasn't driving that to achieve a goal as opposed to a random process.

---

Perhaps I'm misreading your intent here, but evolution is by no means random. Perhaps that's what you were saying though.

---

I'm saying abiogenesis (self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, etc.) didn't just randomly happen.

Scientists have no explanation of what caused these processes.

---

Scientists have quite a few hypotheses regarding the beginning of self-replication, self-assembly, etc. So to say they have "no explanation" is dishonest. If by no explanation you mean no widely agreed-upon mechanistic theory, then I completely agree.

---

There's observation of mechanisms and then there's the question of what initiates or mandates a mechanism's behavior:

We can ask how long a chain of nucleotides needs to be in order to expect self-replicating activity and say "when it's xx long, we see self replication happen on it's own". That's an observation, not an answer as to what set out the "rules" for the length to initiate that behavior.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

"That's how most people read", is this the new standard, "most people."

---

Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The way I was taught to read English, the earth is the object of what was created in the beginning. I assume the translation is faithful to the Hebrew. The earth wasn't present or created in the beginning, at the beginning, during the beginning, or shortly after the beginning. The creation story is contradictory to everything we know about the physical universe. Organic compounds are not dust. Most of the elements that make up carbon based life were made in stars, not by non evident supernatural beings or being of whom man is the image.

---

Do you read Charge of the Light Brigade as a historical account or as poetry based on a historical event?

Are legal text books written in sequential order or in an order that makes sense for learning or research? Do you read them as poetry or as a textbook?

Is it wise to read a poem as historical narrative or a science textbook?

Is a science bad poetry or is it not intended to be read as poetry?

Your both being foolish at this point. Show some honesty in your viewpoint.

---

You're welcome to your opinion. BusyTarpDuster raised the point we're dealing with. Honestly.

---

Well knock yourself out but, before you do. Do you always read poetry as though it is historical narrative or a scientific record? If not, why are you doing it here?

---

You say it's poetry. Others take it literally, and still others view it differently. Does poetry give license to start holy writ off with a mistake?

And since you raised it, why don't you try dealing with science honestly?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

That would be an interesting way to look at it, one I've heard before. But, no, all that is being said is that in its context, "the beginning" is not necessarily referring to the instantaneous moment the universe began to exist. Since the creation story is geocentric in focus, and not cosmologic, "the beginning" can easily refer to the entire time and events from the big bang all the way up to the completion of the formless and void earth, taken as a whole.

There is nothing in the text that asserts any temporal relationship between the birth of the universe and the appearance of the earth. "Most people" who read it this way are free to do so, but must acknowledge this, if they want to be faithful to the text. There was another thread where someone tried to assert that God created Adam and Eve at the same time, simply based on the text that read, "...male and female He created them." The same mistake is being made here with regard to Genesis 1.

I want to be clear, though, that I am not asserting that all those good, faithful Christians who believe that the earth existed at the beginning of the universe are wrong. Who knows, in the end, when we can ask God Himself, we might find out that immediately after the big bang, there was indeed a tiny piece of matter that God kept his eye on and designated as the earth, so technically it would be correct. Who are any of us to say that this didn't happen? Only those with scientific hubris would...except ironically, it would be out of faith, not science!

---

I like that explanation for a lack of a temporal connection. And it doesn't require special creation.

Technically the "turtles all the way down" theory could be correct.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

"That's how most people read", is this the new standard, "most people."

---

Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The way I was taught to read English, the earth is the object of what was created in the beginning. I assume the translation is faithful to the Hebrew. The earth wasn't present or created in the beginning, at the beginning, during the beginning, or shortly after the beginning. The creation story is contradictory to everything we know about the physical universe. Organic compounds are not dust. Most of the elements that make up carbon based life were made in stars, not by non evident supernatural beings or being of whom man is the image.

---

Do you read Charge of the Light Brigade as a historical account or as poetry based on a historical event?

Are legal text books written in sequential order or in an order that makes sense for learning or research? Do you read them as poetry or as a textbook?

Is it wise to read a poem as historical narrative or a science textbook?

Is a science bad poetry or is it not intended to be read as poetry?

Your both being foolish at this point. Show some honesty in your viewpoint.

---

You're welcome to your opinion. BusyTarpDuster raised the point we're dealing with. Honestly.

---

Well knock yourself out but, before you do. Do you always read poetry as though it is historical narrative or a scientific record? If not, why are you doing it here?

---

You say it's poetry. Others take it literally, and still others view it differently. Does poetry give license to start holy writ off with a mistake?

And since you raised it, why don't you try dealing with science honestly?

---

Show me where Genesis 1 is not poetry.

I can show you where some people say that laws don't apply to them because they are "sovereign individuals". Because they say it, it doesn't make them correct. In the same way. Because some take it literally doesn't make it so.

You deal in evidence. Does the evidence I showed regarding the relationships of days 1&4, 2&5, 3&6 give any indication to you that this is a form of Hebrew poetry? If that same pattern was found in another ancient, non-religious writing , would you have trouble seeing that as poetry?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

That would be an interesting way to look at it, one I've heard before. But, no, all that is being said is that in its context, "the beginning" is not necessarily referring to the instantaneous moment the universe began to exist. Since the creation story is geocentric in focus, and not cosmologic, "the beginning" can easily refer to the entire time and events from the big bang all the way up to the completion of the formless and void earth, taken as a whole.

There is nothing in the text that asserts any temporal relationship between the birth of the universe and the appearance of the earth. "Most people" who read it this way are free to do so, but must acknowledge this, if they want to be faithful to the text. There was another thread where someone tried to assert that God created Adam and Eve at the same time, simply based on the text that read, "...male and female He created them." The same mistake is being made here with regard to Genesis 1.

I want to be clear, though, that I am not asserting that all those good, faithful Christians who believe that the earth existed at the beginning of the universe are wrong. Who knows, in the end, when we can ask God Himself, we might find out that immediately after the big bang, there was indeed a tiny piece of matter that God kept his eye on and designated as the earth, so technically it would be correct. Who are any of us to say that this didn't happen? Only those with scientific hubris would...except ironically, it would be out of faith, not science!

---

Except there is a temporal relationship. The earth is contained within the confines of the universe, it is made of elements from stellar processes, and it formed approximately 10 billion years after the universe came into existence. Those are the facts, and given that 2/3rds of the 13.8 billion years of the universe had passed before the earth formed pretty much rules out the idea of no temporal relationship. It makes no sense that 'in the beginning' spans and means 2/3rds of the beginning of time to present, or 10 billion out of 13.8 billion years.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.

---

You can start with just part of chapter one verse one as an example of many. Earth wasn't present in the beginning, it formed billions of years later and after the Sun. As far as Adam, there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image. As far as chapter 2, the second story, we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years. The problem is both stories are fraught with impossibilities and it is objectively clear they are made up stories by primitive people to explain the unknown, no different than any of the many other creation stories of religion and lore.

---

So, you need to amend your statement to "my own narrow, absolutist interpretation of the creation story is contradictory to my understanding of science." I would fully agree with that statement.

"Earth wasn't present in the beginning." - It doesn't say the earth was present at the very beginning of the universe.

"...there is not empirical objective evidence for any gods from which to create a man in the same image" - then it isn't contradictory.

"...we know man didn't come from dust, but rather through an evolutionary process of primates over a few million years" - which had to have started all the way back with abiogenesis, which means it all did start with dust, essentially.

---

That's how most people read Gen 1:1. Are you saying that the universe was created before the beginning and "the heavens and the earth" are a case of special creation?

---

"That's how most people read", is this the new standard, "most people."

---

Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The way I was taught to read English, the earth is the object of what was created in the beginning. I assume the translation is faithful to the Hebrew. The earth wasn't present or created in the beginning, at the beginning, during the beginning, or shortly after the beginning. The creation story is contradictory to everything we know about the physical universe. Organic compounds are not dust. Most of the elements that make up carbon based life were made in stars, not by non evident supernatural beings or being of whom man is the image.

---

Do you read Charge of the Light Brigade as a historical account or as poetry based on a historical event?

Are legal text books written in sequential order or in an order that makes sense for learning or research? Do you read them as poetry or as a textbook?

Is it wise to read a poem as historical narrative or a science textbook?

Is a science bad poetry or is it not intended to be read as poetry?

Your both being foolish at this point. Show some honesty in your viewpoint.

---

You're welcome to your opinion. BusyTarpDuster raised the point we're dealing with. Honestly.

---

Well knock yourself out but, before you do. Do you always read poetry as though it is historical narrative or a scientific record? If not, why are you doing it here?

---

You say it's poetry. Others take it literally, and still others view it differently. Does poetry give license to start holy writ off with a mistake?

And since you raised it, why don't you try dealing with science honestly?

---

Show me where Genesis 1 is not poetry.

I can show you where some people say that laws don't apply to them because they are "sovereign individuals". Because they say it, it doesn't make them correct. In the same way. Because some take it literally doesn't make it so.

You deal in evidence. Does the evidence I showed regarding the relationships of days 1&4, 2&5, 3&6 give any indication to you that this is a form of Hebrew poetry? If that same pattern was found in another ancient, non-religious writing , would you have trouble seeing that as poetry?

---

Poetry doesn't excuse erroneous claims of fact in a book the faithful presents as truth.