Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[Loren Pechtel]

G

You mean... to see if they could deliberately recreate the ingredients and conditions which the bible refers to where God says..."let the earth bring forth".

You forgot the rest of the sentence... the alleged grass and fruit-bearing trees that were allegedly created before the sun was allegedly created.

Plants can survive several days without sunlight. One could wonder what the issue would be between the plants and the sun being created a day apart?

Genesis 1:3 Let there be light.
Genesis 1:11 Let the earth bring forth vegetation.

Pretty sure 11 comes after 3 not before.
Pretty sure there's people growing certain plants without sun light.

You guys are ridiculous. The sun is older than the earth.

I think this comes down to definitions. What constitutes "Sun" and what constitutes "Earth".

When does the "Sun" come into being? Personally, I would say it's at thermonuclear ignition.

When does the "Earth" come into being? This one is much harder because it has no clear start point. There were bits in the primordial gas cloud that certainly existed before the sun ignited. At what point in the banging-into-each-other chain does it become "Earth"?

 

[Lion IRC]

When does the "Sun" come into being? Personally, I would say it's at thermonuclear ignition.

When does the "Earth" come into being?...

Yes, and a lot of concern-trolling, atheist, bible errancy folks mistakenly think Genesis is presenting a strict chronological order where it says....and this happened, and this happened, and this happened, etc, etc. But there's nothing to prevent or compel a concurrent reading of events.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light....and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night...two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

And now we will talk about plants and animals....

And now we will talk about Adam and Eve...

 

[lpetrich]

The Genesis 1 creation story (1:1 to 2:3):

It starts off with a nice 2*3 schema, God creating first three sets of environments and then creating inhabitants for each of them.

Environments	Inhabitants
Celestial
Day 1	Day 4
Light	Sun
Dark	Moon, stars
Far terrestrial
Day 2	Day 5
Sea	Aquatic animals
Sky	Flying animals
Near terrestrial
Day 3	Day 6
Land	Land animals, humanity (both sexes together)
Plants	God to humanity: "You may eat these"

Day 7: God was so happy about what he had done that he decided to take the first day off in the history of the Universe, which thus became the first Sabbath. Something that screams "Charter myth!" about the seventh-day no-work Sabbath.

The Genesis 2 creation story (2:4 to 3:24):

• God creates Adam
• Adam is lonely
• God creates animals for him
• Adam names them, but he is still lonely
• God creates Eve for him
• Adam is less lonely now
• A certain mischievous snake convinces Adam and Eve to eat the very enlightening fruit of a certain tree
• God gets pissed at all three of them

Those these two stories are often retconned together as the second one describing what happened when God created humanity, they are best viewed as two different stories that were edited into one document because they were both respected texts. Bible contradictions are a rather obvious bit of Bible errancy, and they reveal a lot about how it was composed: by assembling an incoherent hodgepodge of documents.

I've lined up features of the two stories:

Feature	Creation Story #1	Creation Story #2
God's name	God (elohim)	The Lord God (yhwh elohim)
God's mood	Happy	Pissed off at the end
Scope	Cosmic	Localized
Creation method	Commanding, separating	Physically forming
Creation organization	Systematic	Improvised
The two sexes of humanity	Together, at the same time	One sex, then the other
JEDP identification	P (priestly)	J (Yahwist)

 

[lpetrich]

Let's look at some of the biology in these stories.

About the snake in the second one, how did it move around before ordered to crawl on its belly? Did it move like a pogo stick? Like a Q-bert coiled-up snake that hops?

I remember someone saying that that snake had legs. But snakes are legless except for some of them having vestigial hind legs. The story doesn't include God saying "You won't have legs anymore!" which would be in character with the rest of what he says to that snake.

As to what snakes eat, although it might seem like they eat dirt or dust, as an earthworm does, they don't. They eat small vertebrates, which they swallow whole. Some snakes are specialized for eating eggs.

As to when the two sexes were created, Genesis 1 is tons better than Genesis 2. How is Adam supposed to reproduce if God stopped after creating him? Adam isn't a parthenogenetic woman, reproducing by virgin birth.

But Genesis 2 has a chaotic quality that much better fits the history of our planet's biota than Genesis 1, with its very orderly design.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You mean... to see if they could deliberately recreate the ingredients and conditions which the bible refers to where God says..."let the earth bring forth".

You forgot the rest of the sentence... the alleged grass and fruit-bearing trees that were allegedly created before the sun was allegedly created.

Plants can survive several days without sunlight. One could wonder then what the issue would be, between the plants and the sun being created just a mere day apart?

Right....so a day was 24 hours before the sun existed.

Some believers apply here the verse which says: one day is like a thousand days to God etc, but .. Genesis literally says days.
Morning,evening,days and nights so yeah,to be consistent with the context of the theology... it would be quite a doddle for an Almighty God!

You can have a day without having a star. It's the period it takes a body to rotate 360 degrees. While the ancients could only measure a day by the sun that doesn't mean you can't have a day on a rogue planet.

 

[pood]

I wonder if the Bible bits are Lion’s “scientific evidence for God” he alluded to earlier, without so far as I know actually providing any — perhaps he did in a post I missed, because I haven’t been reading the whole thread out of boredom with these lame and predictable apologetics.

And, since Genesis doesn’t specifically say Sky Daddy created brain cancer in children, I guess he didn’t then. That’s some scientific evidence!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since this is the Natural Science forum and not the Goddidit forum, perhaps you could supply some physical evidence for the sun being younger than plants [the Earth]?

Isn't this similar to the Abortion debate: "Does life begin at conception?"

The Sun thrives on hydrogen, virginal hydrogen left over from the Big Bang. Fresh virginal hydrogen, which perhaps never suffered under the alchemist's lust. And the Sun wasn't born until the hydrogen atoms began to fervently copulate in the nascent Sun's interior about 4.6 billion years ago.

The Earth, on the other hand, is mostly Iron created by stars late in their lives, stars that disappeared long before the Sun was even a glint in Hydrogen's eye. So, depending on your stance on the "Does life begin at conception?" question, it is the Earth that is older.

The Earth also contains elements heavier than Iron, e.g. Tin, Barium, Lead, and . . . Gold! Yes, that gold whose record-setting INTRINSIC value now exceeds $2000/oz. I'll leave the origin of these metals to the experts.

And that gold etc is mostly believed to have come from neutron stars banging into each other. They bang really, really hard--certainly not virginal. And before they banged they were the object of the alchemist's lust--they really were able to turn lead into gold. (Albeit by indirect routes.) It's not remotely related to the warm embrace of virginal hydrogen fusing, either. Sodomy?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You guys are ridiculous. The sun is older than the earth.

I just cited you the two verses - in the correct order - which show that there was light...a light source, before vegetation on earth.

But it's a long way from Earth to vegetation on Earth.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

yabut, goddidit.

 

[Jarhyn]

Since this is the Natural Science forum and not the Goddidit forum, perhaps you could supply some physical evidence for the sun being younger than plants [the Earth]?

Isn't this similar to the Abortion debate: "Does life begin at conception?"

The Sun thrives on hydrogen, virginal hydrogen left over from the Big Bang. Fresh virginal hydrogen, which perhaps never suffered under the alchemist's lust. And the Sun wasn't born until the hydrogen atoms began to fervently copulate in the nascent Sun's interior about 4.6 billion years ago.

The Earth, on the other hand, is mostly Iron created by stars late in their lives, stars that disappeared long before the Sun was even a glint in Hydrogen's eye. So, depending on your stance on the "Does life begin at conception?" question, it is the Earth that is older.

The Earth also contains elements heavier than Iron, e.g. Tin, Barium, Lead, and . . . Gold! Yes, that gold whose record-setting INTRINSIC value now exceeds $2000/oz. I'll leave the origin of these metals to the experts.

And that gold etc is mostly believed to have come from neutron stars banging into each other. They bang really, really hard--certainly not virginal. And before they banged they were the object of the alchemist's lust--they really were able to turn lead into gold. (Albeit by indirect routes.) It's not remotely related to the warm embrace of virginal hydrogen fusing, either. Sodomy?

Is that a new pickup line? Baby you make me so hot and heavy I wanna bang you like a neutron star til we make gold.

 

[lpetrich]

Let's look at more Genesis vs. modern science.

Order of appearance:

• Bible: Plants, (sea animals, flying animals), land animals
• Actual: Algae, sea animals, land plants, land animals, flying animals

For algae, I looked for references to seaweed and I found nothing. Also nothing for pond scum. So all the Bible's references to plants are to land plants.

Powered flight has evolved four times, all in land animals.

Among the plants mentioned were fruit trees, so let's look in the Bible for them. Fruit in the Bible - Biblical Archaeology Society mentions six of them, though grape plants are vines rather than trees. Let's see what their phylogeny is.

Angiosperms (flowering plants) - Core angiosperms

• Eudicots - Core Eudicots - Pentapetalae
  • Superrosids - Rosids
    • Vitales - Vitaceae - Vitis vinifera - grape
    • Eurosids
      • Fabids - Rosales
        • Moraceae - Ficus carica - fig
        • Rosaceae - Malus domestica - apple
      • Malvids - Myrtales - Lythraceae - Punica granatum - pomegranate
  • Superasterids - Asterids - Euasterids - Lamiids - Lamiales - Oleaceae - Olea europaea - olive
• Monocots - Commelinids - Arecales - Arecaceae - hoenix dactylifera - date

 Fossil history of flowering plants - the first unambigous fossil evidence of them is from early in the Cretaceous Period, some pollen from some 135 million years ago.

Pollination of Cretaceous flowers | PNAS - the oldest known eudicot pollen is from some 125 million years ago.

The Cretaceous period is 145 to 66 million years ago, ending in the K-Pg mass extinction, the disaster that killed the dinosaurs.

The first seed plants lived some 365 million years ago, late in the Devonian period.

The first vascular plants lived some 420 million years ago, early in the Devonian period.

The oldest known land-plant spores date from some 465 million years ago, in the middle of the Ordovician period.

Spores and pollen can survive better than other plant parts, and research into them is called palynology.

The first animals are older than the first land plants:  Cambrian explosion has the first recognizable members of many animal phyla.

Base of the Cambrian: 540 Mya, Chordata: 525 Mya, Echinodermata: 525 Mya, Arthropoda 540 Mya, Annelida 518 Mya, Mollusca 540 Mya, Brachiopoda 535 Mya, ...

Before that was the Ediacaran Period, with its  Ediacaran biota some very odd organisms with a lot of controversy over which later ones they are most closely related to, if any. They go back as far as 610 Myr and possibly further.

The first multicellular eukaryotes are much older, and are both algae. The oldest known one, the red alga Bangiomorpha pubescens goes back some 1.1 billion years, and another very old one, the green alga roterocladus antiquus[/wiki] goes back a billion years.

Turning to prokaryotes, some vaguely cyanobacterium-like fossils go back some 3.5 billion years.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

When does the "Sun" come into being? Personally, I would say it's at thermonuclear ignition.

When does the "Earth" come into being?...

Yes, and a lot of concern-trolling,

To be clear, no atheists in this thread are trolling you.

atheist, bible errancy folks mistakenly think Genesis is presenting a strict chronological order where it says....and this happened, and this happened, and this happened, etc, etc. But there's nothing to prevent or compel a concurrent reading of events.

No one here is assuming if it says A happened and B happened that A happened before B.

HOWEVER, if it states that A happened during the description of what happened on day 1 and then that B happened during the description of what happened on day 2, then it has been claimed that A happened before B.

This isn't trolling when I've done it.

I really wonder not why you would bring up trolling, but instead why you managed to leave out that a poster (such as myself) used the chronology of the days in the posts and you did not include the chronology of days in your description of the texts.

Why?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light....and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night...two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

And now we will talk about plants and animals....

And now we will talk about Adam and Eve...

You are leaving out the chronology of days. It doesn't say "and now on day 2 we will talk about X" and "now on day 3 we will talk about Y," but instead it describes what is alleged to have happened on day 2 and day 3, to include X within day 2 and Y within day 3.

Are you going to claim next that your god took a siesta in the MIDDLE of all the work you are alleging he did?

 

[Elixir]

if it states that A happened during the description of what happened on day 1 and then that B happened during the description of what happened on day 2, then it has been claimed that A happened before B.

Only if 1 comes before 2.
In fundyland that may not be so, if it conflicts with the God dogma of the moment.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Creationist: makes straw men about atheists, ad nauseum, same dumb arguments over and over despite being shown how dumb they are multiple times.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

"The team remains a ways off from showing that this is how life on Earth truly began, but the scenario they tested probably mimics one of the earliest stirrings of evolution, a concept described by the English naturalist Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago."

OH LOOK. THE ARTICLE MENTIONS EVOLUTION. I GUESS THIS PROVEEEES EVOLUTION HAPPENED. ONLY TOOK 2 SECONDS TO FIND THAT.

 

[Lion IRC]

When does the "Sun" come into being? Personally, I would say it's at thermonuclear ignition.

When does the "Earth" come into being?...

Yes, and a lot of concern-trolling,

To be clear, no atheists in this thread are trolling you.

That doesnt make things clear.

atheist, bible errancy folks mistakenly think Genesis is presenting a strict chronological order where it says....and this happened, and this happened, and this happened, etc, etc. But there's nothing to prevent or compel a concurrent reading of events.

No one here is assuming if it says A happened and B happened that A happened before B.

Yes there are.

HOWEVER, if it states that A happened during the description of what happened on day 1 and then that B happened during the description of what happened on day 2, then it has been claimed that A happened before B.

The claim is that there was no light for plants before the sun was named "sun".

This isn't trolling when I've done it.

I really wonder not why you would bring up trolling,

Seems like you want to make trolling the topic.

...but instead why you managed to leave out that a poster (such as myself) used the chronology of the days in the posts and you did not include the chronology of days in your description of the texts.

I cited chapter and verse.
"Let there be light" comes before plants.

What was your contribution?
"You guys are ridiculous. The sun is older than the earth"
"Right....so a day was 24 hours before the sun existed. "

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light....and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night...two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

And now we will talk about plants and animals....

And now we will talk about Adam and Eve...

You are leaving out the chronology of days. It doesn't say "and now on day 2 we will talk about X" and "now on day 3 we will talk about Y," but instead it describes what is alleged to have happened on day 2 and day 3, to include X within day 2 and Y within day 3.

It says Let there be light before it says let there be plants. Your chronology argument is over.

Are you going to claim next that your god took a siesta in the MIDDLE of all the work you are alleging he did?

I can see how concerned you are to have a thoughtful discussion.

 

[pood]

I can see how concerned you are to have a thoughtful discussion.

Shouldn’t there be an exploding irony meter smiley?

If you want to have a thoughtful discussion, perhaps you could lay out the scientific evidence for God you say exists, and, when you have done that, describe the negative evidence for God causing bad stuff like brain cancer, but the positive evidence for God causing good stuff to happen, like, say, answering prayers. Of course, since you “defer” to science, you must be aware that scientists have done studies on the alleged efficacy of praying, and have found no evidence for prayers accomplishing anything.

 

[Lion IRC]

If you want to have a thoughtful discussion...

About the topic at hand.
Read the OP

 

[Elixir]

About the topic at hand.
Read the OP

The only thing creos have to contribute to a discussion of life’s origins is their mantra:
Goddidit.
Short discussion of the “topic at hand” unless you want to discuss molecular biology, and I do not believe either of us is qualified to pontificate on that.
OTOH I am sure you can wax prolix on who sez goddidit.

 

[pood]

If you want to have a thoughtful discussion...

About the topic at hand.
Read the OP

Except it was you who introduced all these other things, and then refused to substantiate the claims you made or answer relevant questions.

If you’d like to do either, and feel that those issues are in conflict with the OP, you can request that the discussion be split off to a separate thread. If you don’t wish to do that, it will sound very much like pointing to the op is just a way to avoid making your case.