I have now met a real life creationist.

[Learner]

Well, not by anyone who understands what 'proof' means as a scientific term.

For instance, I usually ask for evidence, for support, for any fucking reason whatsoever to accept the bare assertions that creationists keep making. I didn't ask for 'proof.'

Some do some don't ..well good on you.

When you ask for the 'missing link,' you betray your misunderstanding of the state of the science. No one's looking for it any more.

I think they've cotton on to an unlikely...it was an idea at least.

WHen you talk about transitional forms.... EVERY species is a transitional form.

Transitional from what between other whats and where does it show this ? - is all that it was.

WHen you talk about 'kinds,' you betray your bias.

It is hard not to sometimes , Praise God.

When you talk about court of law, comparing the legal use of, say, a police officer's theory of who did the crime, to the scientific use of 'theory,' you are instantly identifying the depth of your ignorance.

"And you're suggesting it can't be relied on in court."

 

[Keith&Co.]

When you ask for the 'missing link,' you betray your misunderstanding of the state of the science. No one's looking for it any more.

I think they've cotton on to an unlikely...it was an idea at least.

Cottoned on? The science has moved on with our improved understanding of the process. So that whole 'missing link' thing was dropped as outdated.

WHen you talk about transitional forms.... EVERY species is a transitional form.

Transitional from what between other whats and where does it show this ? - is all that it was.

What do you mean, from what between other whats?
Any gene pool is constantly going through a trial and error if very tiny increments of change in every generation.
If one of these trials gives some part of the gene pool a survival advantage, that change is likely to spread through the gene pool. Along with all the other infinitesimal changes.

WHen you talk about 'kinds,' you betray your bias.

It is hard not to sometimes , Praise God.

Plenty of members of the faithful are competent to discuss evolutionary theory and also believe in one or another (or several) god(s). But like all competent scientists, they do not bring their faith into the workplace and pretend it can compete with the science.

When you talk about court of law, comparing the legal use of, say, a police officer's theory of who did the crime, to the scientific use of 'theory,' you are instantly identifying the depth of your ignorance.

"And you're suggesting it can't be relied on in court."

And your....point?

I pointed out somewhere above, evolutionary theory DOES tend to be relied upon in court because the people on the other side never bring any reliable evidence to the trials. But that's only been to prove that ToE IS a scientific theory, where Creationism/ID isn't. It's not the same as asking a court of law to determine if the theory is correct in the way science evaluates theories.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Urban Dictionary.
Short Yellow Bus : Slang
"The bus the "special" kids take to school."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=short bus

Is that what Internet infidels do to 'win' arguments?

Not very PC. Not very rational.

Kosh wasn't mocking disability.

He was using disability as an analogy - He was mocking YOU. And with considerable justification too. People who cling to false belief in the face of overwhelming evidence are worthy of mockery.

Those who would impose their false beliefs on others are deserving of far worse than mere mockery.

People are laughing at you (and other creationists), because you are ridiculous. And you can't even set us on fire for it anymore. The dark ages ain't coming back, so you had better either get smart, or get used to the sound of folks laughing at you.

Or maybe religion is evidence of disability. Science is hard. Religion is easy. Statistics show that people with low educations are more religious than people with higher educations.

A degree in divinity isn't going to get you a job at CERN, but you might make a buck writing books for religious people to read. So maybe we shouldn't mock people with strong religious beliefs anymore than we would mock a person with an obvious handicap.

The problem, however, is when the person with the handicap starts mocking you for not having a handicap, or tells you that you have to live like you have a handicap. That's when it gets interesting.

 

[Learner]

Not wishing to change the topic any further but does the statistics show that common sensed individuals with fairly good reasoning IQs 'can be found' in people who've had the "lower" educations as well as those having had higher educations ?

 

[wilson]

Complexity does not equal design.

You cannot successfully deny that the sun is a sophisticated arrangement.

The sun - as are all stars - is certainly complex, but calling it an "arrangement" implies that it was designed, an implication which you've provided no evidence to back up.

Complexity is discernible and sometimes understandable but it does not create itself. Perhaps you could provide examples of how any complex object got that way without assistance.

In order to support your argument for design, you have to show that the sun (and the rather large number of other stars in the universe) could not possibly have formed on their own without assistance from a designer.

I think you got that backwards. YOU are alleging that it formed itself. Since there is no such thing as more complexity from less and since you admit that the sun is complex, you would have to show how it became that way first.

Provide your evidence for a designer, and "wow this thing is really complicated and I don't understand how it works" doesn't count.

Then I await your explanation of how the sun became complex on its own. You would have to show what went into the complexity, including all the relevant components. Remember - there is no such thing as more complexity from less.
I call it an arrangement because it does not and cannot operate on its own. It cannot keep itself in orbit and it certainly did not create the gravity that holds it in place.

 

[bilby]

Complexity does not equal design.

You cannot successfully deny that the sun is a sophisticated arrangement.

The sun - as are all stars - is certainly complex, but calling it an "arrangement" implies that it was designed, an implication which you've provided no evidence to back up.

Complexity is discernible and sometimes understandable but it does not create itself. Perhaps you could provide examples of how any complex object got that way without assistance.

In order to support your argument for design, you have to show that the sun (and the rather large number of other stars in the universe) could not possibly have formed on their own without assistance from a designer.

I think you got that backwards. YOU are alleging that it formed itself. Since there is no such thing as more complexity from less and since you admit that the sun is complex, you would have to show how it became that way first.

Provide your evidence for a designer, and "wow this thing is really complicated and I don't understand how it works" doesn't count.

Then I await your explanation of how the sun became complex on its own. You would have to show what went into the complexity, including all the relevant components. Remember - there is no such thing as more complexity from less.
I call it an arrangement because it does not and cannot operate on its own. It cannot keep itself in orbit and it certainly did not create the gravity that holds it in place.

You keep talking about the Sun's orbit - Which I find very odd. The Sun has only completed about 20 orbits, and each takes around 226,000,000 years, so it's not something that usually comes up in discussions. Most people talk about the dynamics of the universe from the reference frame of a stationary sun, which is a good enough approximation for anyone who isn't interested in galactic scale phenomena.

I am beginning to suspect that you think that the Sun orbits the Earth. Please tell me that you don't.

 

[wilson]

The bible is a very unscientific piece of writing which therefore appeals to unscientific individuals. That's why they oppose Evolution Theory, not because it's wrong.

That is simply not true. It can scientifically be proven that life comes only from life. Abiogenesis is just an idea - totally unproven and unprovable. That is what the bible says and that is the only scientific explanation of the origin of man. (Ge 1:26-28; 2:7) You have no other explanation.
The bible accurately describes the progressive order of earth’s preparation for human habitation (Ge 1:1-31).
Before man was able to provide photographic and other evidence, the bible speaks of the earth as being spherical and hung on “nothing” (Job 26:7; Isa 40:22)
A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support—does not that description sound remarkably modern?
The bible correctly identifies the hare as a "chewer of cud." (Leviticus 11:4,6)
The vast amount of water on the earth are limited, by God's decree, to their proper place. They do not come up and inundate the land; neither do they fly off into space. (Job 38:8-11)
The bible correctly describes the water cycle. (Job 36:27,*28)
There is a lot more.

 

[bilby]

The bible is a very unscientific piece of writing which therefore appeals to unscientific individuals. That's why they oppose Evolution Theory, not because it's wrong.

That is simply not true. It can scientifically be proven that life comes only from life.

Only if you live prior to 1828. Friedrich Wöhler demolished Vitalism by synthesizing organic compounds from inorganic precursors. your 'science' is at least 189 years out of date.

Abiogenesis is just an idea - totally unproven and unprovable.

Life exists on Earth. Life demonstrably did not exist on Earth 4,500,000,000 years ago; Therefore abiogenesis must have occurred

That is what the bible says and that is the only scientific explanation of the origin of man. (Ge 1:26-28; 2:7)

The Bible is wrong. On this subject, the Bible is very obviously and totally wrong.

You have no other explanation.

Of course we do. There is a wealth of scientific research in this area - your deliberate ignorance of it doesn't make it go away.

http://exploringorigins.org/ribozymes.html

Seriously, there is a metric shit-ton of information out there on how the first life probably came about. Not knowing about it makes you an ignoramus. Telling people who do know about it that they don't know about it makes you a fool.

The bible accurately describes the progressive order of earth’s preparation for human habitation (Ge 1:1-31).
Before man was able to provide photographic and other evidence, the bible speaks of the earth as being spherical and hung on “nothing” (Job 26:7; Isa 40:22)
A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support—does not that description sound remarkably modern?
The bible correctly identifies the hare as a "chewer of cud." (Leviticus 11:4,6)
The vast amount of water on the earth are limited, by God's decree, to their proper place. They do not come up and inundate the land; neither do they fly off into space. (Job 38:8-11)
The bible correctly describes the water cycle. (Job 36:27,*28)
There is a lot more.

The Bible is not a science book. It not only contradicts modern science in a number of clear and obvious ways; it also contradicts ITSELF repeatedly. The first two chapters of Genesis don't even agree with each other about the sequence of events.

You have been very badly abused by whatever passed for 'education' in your part of the world, if you think that quoting Bible verses is a viable substitute for actual knowledge. A single introductory undergraduate text on molecular cell biology is larger than your entire Bible. Even if it wasn't self-contradictory, the Bible is not big enough to contain more than an incredibly brief summary of one tiny area of science - and instead of doing that, it spends thousands of tedious column inches on the obsolete genealogy of a tiny tribe of unremarkable bronze age shepherds.

Read some real science. Learn something about reality. Then come back and tell people what other explanations they might or might not have, for things you know jack shit about.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Not wishing to change the topic any further but does the statistics show that common sensed individuals with fairly good reasoning IQs 'can be found' in people who've had the "lower" educations as well as those having had higher educations ?

1) IQ does not correspond to intelligence. IQ is a tool for identifying mental retardation in children. Any result above 70 are pretty much the same result. Everybody who uses it to measure intelligence in adults are wrong.

2) We can't agree on how to measure intelligence. Everybody agrees that a major factor in intelligence is creativity. How can you measure that without creating a new test each time (and thereby rendering the results unscientific).

3) Anecdotally the Creationists I've spoken to here haven't come across as more stupid as non-Creationists. Sure, they very often make silly arguments (which have been shot down a million times before here). But they don't know that. I'm sure they're just not used to talking with non-Creationists. And all this thought through resistance takes them by surprise.

4) Education is clearly the key. There's a whole host of theories as to why high education is linked to both atheism and belief in ToE. The statistics on it is not dependable. There's a lot of bullshit studies. But scientists have been studied a lot. We have dependable numbers on them. Also worth noting is the link between creationism and climate change denialism. I think the conclusion is obvious. Religious people do more wishful thinking. They tend more (than atheist) to lead with what they want to be true, rather than looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions with an open mind.

5) I think it's safe to say that regardless of metric scientists are the best educated. Biblical litteralist scientists is 0%. Belief in any god is 15%, and those people tend to have some pretty creative and weird concepts of god. There are very few biologist scientists who believe in Creationism. It's so few that the statistic is 0%. None of them have ever managed to make any major scientific contribution. It's never happened. Which is good to keep in mind. Also, most of those believe God has done minor contributions overall. Also, whenever there crops up a Creationist and scientist in the media who makes claims most of them turn out to be fakes. Yup, people with diploma mill certificates.

 

[Ford]

Complexity does not equal design.

You cannot successfully deny that the sun is a sophisticated arrangement.

The sun - as are all stars - is certainly complex, but calling it an "arrangement" implies that it was designed, an implication which you've provided no evidence to back up.

Complexity is discernible and sometimes understandable but it does not create itself. Perhaps you could provide examples of how any complex object got that way without assistance.

Assistance from what?

You arrived here insisting you were not a creationist, yet you are clearly arguing for the existence of a creator. Okay. Provide your evidence.

Again, not "I don't understand how the sun could possibly exist without one," but actual evidence that it was created.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Complexity does not equal design.

You cannot successfully deny that the sun is a sophisticated arrangement.

The sun - as are all stars - is certainly complex, but calling it an "arrangement" implies that it was designed, an implication which you've provided no evidence to back up.

Complexity is discernible and sometimes understandable but it does not create itself. Perhaps you could provide examples of how any complex object got that way without assistance.

Assistance from what?

You arrived here insisting you were not a creationist, yet you are clearly arguing for the existence of a creator. Okay. Provide your evidence.

Again, not "I don't understand how the sun could possibly exist without one," but actual evidence that it was created.

It's remarkable how this, turtles all the way down, argument keeps popping up. The discussions always have the same predictable trajectory

"There's no way complexity can form by itself. There's always a more complex being creating the less complex being"

"No way? So there's no way that first being was created?"

"Erm... well... ehe... it has always existed"

Which isn't an answer at all. I've never seen a creationist climb out of that hole with any dignity intact.

Still, they keep coming back.

Wilson, you might want to look up the logical fallacy of special pleading. If you assert a universal rule that doesn't apply in special cases, then it's not a universal rule. If God could create itself then so can other things.

And finally, ToE shows very neatly how something less complex can create something more complex. So... yeah... what are you struggling with when it comes to understanding the mechanic? Darwins insight really did solve that.

 

[Learner]

1) IQ does not correspond to intelligence. IQ is a tool for identifying mental retardation in children. Any result above 70 are pretty much the same result. Everybody who uses it to measure intelligence in adults are wrong.

Well if this is the case there would be a lot of wrong people thinking how clever they are as mensa members.

2) We can't agree on how to measure intelligence. Everybody agrees that a major factor in intelligence is creativity. How can you measure that without creating a new test each time (and thereby rendering the results unscientific).

I heard a physicist say that regarding the creativity and discovery but he stressed that for these scientists it requires imagination and imagination is often seen as fantasizing. Multi-verses - dimensions , timewarps , darkmatter , etc.

3) Anecdotally the Creationists I've spoken to here haven't come across as more stupid as non-Creationists. Sure, they very often make silly arguments (which have been shot down a million times before here). But they don't know that. I'm sure they're just not used to talking with non-Creationists. And all this thought through resistance takes them by surprise.

You have spoken to Creationists that believe without the need to know any more than what they see neccessary outside their religion. That doesn't mean not having common sense to guide them about in everyday life ie being non stupid.

4) Education is clearly the key. There's a whole host of theories as to why high education is linked to both atheism and belief in ToE. The statistics on it is not dependable. There's a lot of bullshit studies. But scientists have been studied a lot. We have dependable numbers on them. Also worth noting is the link between creationism and climate change denialism. I think the conclusion is obvious. Religious people do more wishful thinking. They tend more (than atheist) to lead with what they want to be true, rather than looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions with an open mind.

I agree education is the key. Being trained in specific areas of passionate interest and career based long term security. Science being investigative study tools is neutral to believer and non believer as is a hammer and chisel. Anyone can use it but currently as you correctly indicate. Non believers are ahead in numbers.

5) I think it's safe to say that regardless of metric scientists are the best educated. Biblical litteralist scientists is 0%. Belief in any god is 15%, and those people tend to have some pretty creative and weird concepts of god. There are very few biologist scientists who believe in Creationism. It's so few that the statistic is 0%. None of them have ever managed to make any major scientific contribution. It's never happened. Which is good to keep in mind. Also, most of those believe God has done minor contributions overall. Also, whenever there crops up a Creationist and scientist in the media who makes claims most of them turn out to be fakes. Yup, people with diploma mill certificates.

I know of two main types of higher educated: Both have gained considerable knowledge through various study and training. One can recite his text books and recall all the methods he was taught always using what he or she only needs to know and repeating. Any changes to the method would be confusing , out of place,not normal or unacceptable. Out of this a sub division. Educated but still be thick as planks when doing something different.

The other can do more or less the same but can by his own imagination adapt his aquired methods and expand on it or in some cases rewrite a better method or model .

You can be educated and have one person that repeats only what he has learned as coined the phrase "not thinking outside the box" and have another person that is not a repeater but an analytical thinker who "thinks outside the box" changing conventions advancing further.

Lower educated very similar. For example problem solving logic when in difficult situations .
ed:
Don't REPEAT the same mistake

 

[Ford]

And finally, ToE shows very neatly how something less complex can create something more complex. So... yeah... what are you struggling with when it comes to understanding the mechanic? Darwins insight really did solve that.

Well to be fair, wilson isn't arguing for or against ToE in this thread, but rather (apparently) that our sun and planet exist merely because (fill in the blank) willed it into existence.


But he's totally not a creationist.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well if this is the case there would be a lot of wrong people thinking how clever they are as mensa members.

The world is full of idiots thinking themselves smart.

2) We can't agree on how to measure intelligence. Everybody agrees that a major factor in intelligence is creativity. How can you measure that without creating a new test each time (and thereby rendering the results unscientific).

I heard a physicist say that regarding the creativity and discovery but he stressed that for these scientists it requires imagination and imagination is often seen as fantasizing. Multi-verses - dimensions , timewarps , darkmatter , etc.

The human brain is a swiss army knife of sorts. It's good at adapting to whatever situation it is in. It's not all that good. But it is better than the competition. So intelligence is highly dependent on context. And we're a social species. We haven't evolved to being smart alone. We've evolved to be smart in groups. We've evolved for specialisation and for our own weaknesses to be covered by our companions. That makes it virtually impossible to test.

I assemble teams of very intelligent IT professionals. It's my job. It's remarkable how people only shine in certain group dynamics.

3) Anecdotally the Creationists I've spoken to here haven't come across as more stupid as non-Creationists. Sure, they very often make silly arguments (which have been shot down a million times before here). But they don't know that. I'm sure they're just not used to talking with non-Creationists. And all this thought through resistance takes them by surprise.

You have spoken to Creationists that believe without the need to know any more than what they see neccessary outside their religion. That doesn't mean not having common sense to guide them about in everyday life ie being non stupid.

Exactly. It's also a question of practice. In Sweden our Creationist are the sharp one's and the people who believe in Evolution are the one's with the stupid arguments. Simply because who we discuss with. I noticed that about myself when I started talking with Americans on-line.

4) Education is clearly the key. There's a whole host of theories as to why high education is linked to both atheism and belief in ToE. The statistics on it is not dependable. There's a lot of bullshit studies. But scientists have been studied a lot. We have dependable numbers on them. Also worth noting is the link between creationism and climate change denialism. I think the conclusion is obvious. Religious people do more wishful thinking. They tend more (than atheist) to lead with what they want to be true, rather than looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions with an open mind.

I agree education is the key. Being trained in specific areas of passionate interest and career based long term security. Science being investigative study tools is neutral to believer and non believer as is a hammer and chisel. Anyone can use it.

Exactly. And since ToE is true, eventually this is what the educated mind will believe. Also, understanding the mechanic is incredibly powerful for improving oneself in everything we do. Understanding the randomness of life is very liberating. Understanding how patterns can form even in random.

5) I think it's safe to say that regardless of metric scientists are the best educated. Biblical litteralist scientists is 0%. Belief in any god is 15%, and those people tend to have some pretty creative and weird concepts of god. There are very few biologist scientists who believe in Creationism. It's so few that the statistic is 0%. None of them have ever managed to make any major scientific contribution. It's never happened. Which is good to keep in mind. Also, most of those believe God has done minor contributions overall. Also, whenever there crops up a Creationist and scientist in the media who makes claims most of them turn out to be fakes. Yup, people with diploma mill certificates.

I know of two main types of higher educated: Both have gained considerable knowledge through various study and training. One can recite his text books and recall all the methods he was taught always using what he or she only needs to know and repeating. Any changes to the method would be confusing , out of place or unacceptable.

The other can do more or less the same but can by his own imagination adapt his aquired methods and expand on it or in some cases rewrite a better method or model .

You can be educated and have one person that repeats only what he has learned as coined the phrase "not thinking outside the box" and have another person that not a repeater but an analytical thinker who "thinks outside the box" changing conventions advancing further.

Lower educated very similar. For example problem solving logic when in difficult situations .

Don't REPEAT the same mistake

Thinking outside the box is only possible if you know the box well. You need to know the box before you start venturing beyond it's confines or you don't know what you're doing. Any human skill is the same. Music, gotta know the basics before you start going crazy. Painting, gotta know figurative art before your abstract pieces will start to work. And so on and so forth. Science is no different.

And that's always apparent when talking with Creationists about ToE. They just don't know it well enough to offer good arguments against it. First step is always getting to know the subject matter

 

[Learner]

Thinking outside the box is only possible if you know the box well. You need to know the box before you start venturing beyond it's confines or you don't know what you're doing. Any human skill is the same. Music, gotta know the basics before you start going crazy. Painting, gotta know figurative art before your abstract pieces will start to work. And so on and so forth. Science is no different.

And that's always apparent when talking with Creationists about ToE. They just don't know it well enough to offer good arguments against it. First step is always getting to know the subject matter

Know your box well Yes sounds right ..never thought about that.


(called for breakfst)

 

[wilson]

Complexity does not equal design.

You cannot successfully deny that the sun is a sophisticated arrangement.

The sun - as are all stars - is certainly complex, but calling it an "arrangement" implies that it was designed, an implication which you've provided no evidence to back up.

Complexity is discernible and sometimes understandable but it does not create itself. Perhaps you could provide examples of how any complex object got that way without assistance.

In order to support your argument for design, you have to show that the sun (and the rather large number of other stars in the universe) could not possibly have formed on their own without assistance from a designer.

I think you got that backwards. YOU are alleging that it formed itself. Since there is no such thing as more complexity from less and since you admit that the sun is complex, you would have to show how it became that way first.

Provide your evidence for a designer, and "wow this thing is really complicated and I don't understand how it works" doesn't count.

Then I await your explanation of how the sun became complex on its own. You would have to show what went into the complexity, including all the relevant components. Remember - there is no such thing as more complexity from less.
I call it an arrangement because it does not and cannot operate on its own. It cannot keep itself in orbit and it certainly did not create the gravity that holds it in place.

You keep talking about the Sun's orbit - Which I find very odd. The Sun has only completed about 20 orbits, and each takes around 226,000,000 years, so it's not something that usually comes up in discussions. Most people talk about the dynamics of the universe from the reference frame of a stationary sun, which is a good enough approximation for anyone who isn't interested in galactic scale phenomena.

I am beginning to suspect that you think that the Sun orbits the Earth. Please tell me that you don't.

I'm sorry, Mr Bilby, but that has nothing to do with complexity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I am beginning to suspect that you think that the Sun orbits the Earth. Please tell me that you don't.

I'm sorry, Mr Bilby, but that has nothing to do with complexity.

Complexity is a mathematical term.

It means that there are feedback loops in the equation where the values of the input variables change depending on the result. So the result keeps changing each time you calculate it.

A good example is the weather. The physical processes involved area very simple and straightforward. But it is complex which means that it's almost impossible to calculate.

Something being complex is not hard to design. Especially not if you're using an evolutionary approach. The fact that the universe is complex is a clue that it came about by natural forces using an evolutionary mechanic. That's as true for orbits of planets as it is for life on Earth.

But this is very basic science. If you paid attention in school you should already know this?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But he's totally not a creationist.

And he knows facts about ID that make it compelling, but he's not an ID proponent.

He's also terribly fond of demanding others to support their claims while providing fuck-all to support his own...
But he's not a creationist.

 

[wilson]

That is simply not true. It can scientifically be proven that life comes only from life.

Only if you live prior to 1828. Friedrich Wöhler demolished Vitalism by synthesizing organic compounds from inorganic precursors. your 'science' is at least 189 years out of date.

Are you saying that science cannot prove that life comes only from life?

Abiogenesis is just an idea - totally unproven and unprovable.

Life exists on Earth. Life demonstrably did not exist on Earth 4,500,000,000 years ago; Therefore abiogenesis must have occurred

How do you know that? How can you tell if earth was in existence 4 byo? And in what way is that position any better than "GODDIDIT?"

That is what the bible says and that is the only scientific explanation of the origin of man. (Ge 1:26-28; 2:7)

The Bible is wrong. On this subject, the Bible is very obviously and totally wrong.

Where's the proof that the bible is wrong?

You have no other explanation.

Of course we do. There is a wealth of scientific research in this area - your deliberate ignorance of it doesn't make it go away.

Is there a reason for your rudeness? I don't allow anyone to talk to me that way and still continue talking with him.
Now - I know about the research. It is the results of that research that should concern you.
They have come up with a blank!!!

http://exploringorigins.org/ribozymes.html

This is all wrong for the simple reason that there is no such thing as more complexity from less.
Where did the material they are using come from? Were they made by the scientists? Have you, or they, been able to demonstrate that all of these components are self-generated?

Seriously, there is a metric-shit ton of information out there on how the first life probably came about. Not knowing about it makes you an ignoramus. Telling people who do know about it that they don't know about it makes you a fool.

Ignoramus? Fool? There you go again! It must be desperation that evokes such remarks. One more time and I will be discussing this with someone else.

The bible accurately describes the progressive order of earth’s preparation for human habitation (Ge 1:1-31).
Before man was able to provide photographic and other evidence, the bible speaks of the earth as being spherical and hung on “nothing” (Job 26:7; Isa 40:22)
A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support—does not that description sound remarkably modern?
The bible correctly identifies the hare as a "chewer of cud." (Leviticus 11:4,6)
The vast amount of water on the earth are limited, by God's decree, to their proper place. They do not come up and inundate the land; neither do they fly off into space. (Job 38:8-11) The bible correctly describes the water cycle. (Job 36:27,*28)
There is a lot more.

The Bible is not a science book.

Granted!

It not only contradicts modern science in a number of clear and obvious ways;

The bible never contradicts true science. It goes against certain theories but never against science.

it also contradicts ITSELF repeatedly. The first two chapters of Genesis don't even agree with each other about the sequence of events.

Are you sure that is true, or are you just spreading a false rumor? Can you tell the difference? Or are you parroting the falsehood of critics?
Commentary:
"These two creation accounts in the book of Genesis, though differing slightly in the treatment of the material, are in perfect agreement with each other on all points, including the fact that Eve was created after Adam. So not until after this event did the sixth creative day come to an end. Exactly how soon after Adam’s creation is not disclosed. “After that [Adam and Eve’s creation] God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Gen. 1:31) After the sixth creative day ends, the seventh one begins." (WT 68 8/15 pp. 499-500)

You have been very badly abused by whatever passed for 'education' in your part of the world, if you think that quoting Bible verses is a viable substitute for actual knowledge.

What is that - fortune-telling or some other form of mysticism? You know nothing about me nor the system under which I was raised.
When someone like Joe'sdad says: "The bible is a very unscientific piece of writing....", what do you expect its defenders to quote from?

A single introductory undergraduate text on molecular cell biology is larger than your entire Bible.

Correct - but that cell was not created by any human scientist. He is only just discovering its enormous complexity. There is no such thing as more complexity from less.

Even if it wasn't self-contradictory, the Bible is not big enough to contain more than an incredibly brief summary of one tiny area of science - and instead of doing that, it spends thousands of tedious column inches on the obsolete genealogy of a tiny tribe of unremarkable bronze age shepherds.

And even though brief, it is the most enduring of all written historical texts, in spite of extraordinary efforts to curtail its production and distribution.

Read some real science. Learn something about reality. Then come back and tell people what other explanations they might or might not have, for things you know jack shit about.

Your faith in a human construct is totally dependent on public funding. What happens when such funding is withdrawn or refused? Does your "real" world collapse then? Poor people and nations mean absolutely nothing to the "progressive" ones. Your "reality" includes the absence of peace, your proclivity for armed conflict, the need for neighbor love and so many other things that make life truly worthwhile.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Are you saying that science cannot prove that life comes only from life?

Well, how would you construct the experiment to prove that life ONLY comes from life?
What could you do to establish, without quibble, that all possible means of life forming spontaneously could not possibly be true under all possible conditions?
How could science ever show that they had thought of all possible means, and all possible conditions, in order to establish that none of these possibilities could ever, in a million million years, come to be?

that would be some astounding science, really. Can you even imagine the steps necessary to PROVE this idea to be a valid one?