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

[pood]

Moreover, discussing ini this thread the biblical account of Genesis also has nothing to do with the OP. The OP is a scientific question, and the bible is a pre-scientific book of fables.

 

[Elixir]

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.

I suggest that none of Lion’s posts have anything to do with the subject of the OP.
It’s just his elaborated “goddidit”, interjected into what was a link to science.
Perhaps his posts should be split off, for discussion of how his god is the origin of life.

 

[Elixir]

Moreover, discussing ini this thread the biblical account of Genesis also has nothing to do with the OP. The OP is a scientific question, and the bible is a pre-scientific book of fables.

Yeah that!! Sorry - didn’t see it before I posted.

 

[lostone]

Isn't their a hidden topic here being assumed? The existence of this particular 'God'?

 

[Lion IRC]

Except it was you who introduced all these other things...

Nope. Go back and read carefully to see who introduced "all these other things"

 

[Lion IRC]

Isn't their a hidden topic here being assumed? The existence of this particular 'God'?

No. The topic is humans creating stuff in test tube - which I think is great.

 

[Jarhyn]

Isn't their a hidden topic here being assumed? The existence of this particular 'God'?

No. The topic is humans creating stuff in test tube - which I think is great.

No, the topic is humans creating test tubes and stuff in test tubes and that stuff creating the final product in a way only as controlled as the constraint that keeps our environment out of the tube environment.

Yet again, you are conflating and equivocating different intents and usages of the utterance "create".

 

[Elixir]

Isn't their a hidden topic here being assumed? The existence of this particular 'God'?

No. The topic is humans creating stuff in test tube - which I think is great.

Reading not your strong suit, eh
Humans don’t create “stuff” they only rearrange matter and energy. In doing so they are converging on knowledge of specific viable pathways to life, starting with primordial plasma, hydrogen and a little helium.

You don’t like it, come up with some science, and get over the fact that “goddidit” is not science.

 

[lostone]

To put one issue raised here to rest, the matter/atoms of which the earth is composed is no older than the matter of which the sun is composed. Both are composed of elementary particles which have existed since the Big Bang. But the sun formed first

 

[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.

That doesnt make things clear.

In other words, you are accusing atheists of 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.

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

Yes there are.

Nope, no one said that because it said A and B that A happened before B. People said because it said A happened on day N and B happened on day N+1, 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.

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

Your religious text doesn't say that the sun wasn't named the sun yet. It says the sun was created:

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

You are claiming this:

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

13.5 Oh yeah, forgot to mention. All this stuff happened earlier:

(14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.)​

18.5 Yeah, um, so basically god took a day off.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

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.

I am responding to your accusations of trolling. No one is trolling here. The closest thing is you derailing the thread and then saying that the Bible is saying things it doesn't say and you are in here saying people are saying things they haven't said. But that isn't trolling either. It's just an entitled feeling to think you can derail the thread because you think your religion is so important you have to bring it up. It probably also stems from an assumption that when someone is talking about life's origins in a scientific context that you assume it's an automatic invitation to debate creationism rather than a technical bit of info directed to likeminded people who want to know about the latest biology. Needless to say it happened that you derailed, brought everyone along, and are now here making accusations of trolling rather than making accurate calls about what your religious text says and what people say in the thread.

...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.

Let there be light is not the creation of the sun since the creation of the sun happens on day 4.

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. "

Yes, and I was right as your claims are ridiculous.

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.

It doesn't say there is a sun. The sun was created on day 4. So my chronology argument is not over at all.

You have some splaining to do!

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.

Indeed. I have pointed out how moronic your claim was. If the biblical story could be reduced to a bunch of timeless and's as opposed to and's within the contexts of each day of 7, then the alleged sabbath could have occurred anywhere in time within the creation events. Instead, it is made clear that the creations were over and the rest was done on the 7th day.

KJV, Genesis 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

And this shows how much the days have chronological meaning just like they do in common usage. That's very, very different from your pretense that people were making claims based merely on timeless and's.

 

[pood]

Except it was you who introduced all these other things...

Nope. Go back and read carefully to see who introduced "all these other things"

You did. In the very first response to the OP.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To put one issue raised here to rest, the matter/atoms of which the earth is composed is no older than the matter of which the sun is composed. Both are composed of elementary particles which have existed since the Big Bang. But the sun formed first

Disagree.

The sun is mostly hydrogen. Protons, paired with electrons. That is truly primordial.

However, everything above that has neutrons. Some neutrons were created in the big bang but most of them were created later (fundamentally, proton + electron => neutron, but not necessarily by a direct path.)

And I certainly haven't seen any real attempt to address my point about exactly when they formed. It is pretty clear that some degree of formation of the Earth predates stellar ignition. At what point do we say Earth was "formed"? If we are comparing it to the "pro-life" community I would say the Earth formed first--but in the sense that they consider a blastocyst to be a person.

 

[Lion IRC]

Created.
Great.
Another win for Team Creationists

I don't see the word God or bible anywhere in there

 

[pood]

Created.
Great.
Another win for Team Creationists

I don't see the word God or bible anywhere in there

You, who a self-identified “Biblical theist,” refer to “Team Creationists,” and what do you think most people here, who are atheists, are going to take that to mean, given that the word “creationist” is quite commonly used across many venues to refer either to theism or at least ID?

Is it even possible for you to stop being so slippery and disingenuous? Can you please address the following points that YOU raised?

What is the “scientific evidence” that God exists?

What is the “scientific evidence” that God causes good stuff to happen?

If God exists and causes good stuff to happen, why, according to you, does he NOT cause bad stuff to happen, like brain cancer in children? Please recall that it’s not enough for you to blithely assert that there is no scientific evidence that God causes brain cancer. That is true, but highly misleading. It’s misleading because there is no scientific evidence that God exists at all. But you say you have such evidence, so please present it.

 

[Lion IRC]

Can you please address the following points that YOU raised?

What is the “scientific evidence” that God exists?

What is the “scientific evidence” that God causes good stuff to happen?

Use the quote function.
Then we'll talk.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Created.
Great.
Another win for Team Creationists

I don't see the word God or bible anywhere in there

Creationist - a person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of their God, as in a literal interpretation of Genesis from the Bible

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Can you please address the following points that YOU raised?

What is the “scientific evidence” that God exists?

What is the “scientific evidence” that God causes good stuff to happen?

Use the quote function.
Then we'll talk.

He doesn't need to use the quote function. This is the Natural Science forum so it is normal to ask for scientific evidence.

 

[Elixir]

Created.
Great.
Another win for Team Creationists

I don't see the word God or bible anywhere in there

Eeeeuw. Smarmy.

Creationist - a person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of their God, as in a literal interpretation of Genesis from the Bible

.. and then denies trying to drag GOD and BIBLE crap into a natural science thread…

Just … Eeeeuw.

 

[pood]

Can you please address the following points that YOU raised?

What is the “scientific evidence” that God exists?

What is the “scientific evidence” that God causes good stuff to happen?

Use the quote function.
Then we'll talk.

Use the quote function? Is there no end to your prevarication? Are you denying that you said there is scientific evidence that God exists? Also, why did you fail to quote the rest of what I wrote? Are you denying that you said there is no evidence that God causes brain cancer in children, while also failing to note that there is no such evidence because there is no evidence that God exists? Is this slippery crap the best you can do?

 

[Elixir]

Is this slippery crap the best you can do?

In nearly thirty years of calling out creationists, never have I come across one who apologizes for their disingenuous, slimy argumentation. The closest to it was a creationist making apology for another’s sliminess.

I wonder if that kind of dishonesty is a matter for confession, or if they think it’s just S.O.P. When you’re on A Mission From God.