Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

We've built computers with massive computation power and they never grew a conscience, so your theory is not supported by facts. And we have no clue how DNA or even RNA could replicate themselves without the required cellular machinery...

Either your English is piss-poor (always a distinct possibility), or you're being willfully obtuse. Consciousness has nothing to do with having a conscience.

You might want to read about Graham Cairns-Smith and his work on clays and self-replicating molecules, as well as his work on the origins of consciousness. Then again, since your alleged "scientific culture" usually involves shooting from the hip, maybe you won't want to read about him.

I personally don't know of a molecule that replicates itself. I'm not sure whether evolutionary biologists do or not, but this is the hypothesis that they state. The fact that we don't know every detail of the way something happened doesn't make it mystical.

Our computers don't work the same way that the first animals did. Our computers have been designed to follow instructions. Consciousness is simply the result of computing power of the right type of computer reaching a certain level. Again, this is nothing mystical.

Please see the link in my post to Olive Tree. Silicate clays routine replicate themselves.

Thanks. Interesting.

Very simple to answer, if you check how scientists finally are capable to "re-write" the information found in a cell, then you know that "somebody" had to write the primeval information found in that cell. It has to be an intelligent being the one who wrote first such an information.

Going further, it is a scientist who claims that the entire universe is like a huge computer where information is found everywhere. Again, the bible claims the same about wisdom spreaded throughtout the entire universe.

Lets go one more step, scientists claim that the universe is expanding, and the same phenomenon has been explained in the bible where it says that elohim (god) expanded the heavens with his hand.

This is to say, that regardless of the several fantasies found in science (millions of years of life on earth, parallel universes, time dilatation, black holes, etc) currently science is backing up every narration found in the bible.

Now well, if the bible writings were inspired by god, then there is a god. And if there is a god, then the story of creation becomes a real event.

My answer to Joe was in reference to my post on page 2 of this thread.
http://able2know.org/topic/245625-2#post-5673665
I dared to cover only the creation part of the book of Genesis, as that was all Brandon asked. Since it has not received replies, I assume no one has bothered to read it.

I stand by my assertion that the first 2 chapters of Genesis are sufficient.

Sufficient for what? Sufficient to engender belief in a well-educated man or woman of the 21st century? Talking about sufficiency for bronze age hillbillies in Palestine is not a reason to believe the biblical account of creation.

Why do you play these idiot games?

(Cleaning coffee spilled through nose)
Do you actually think the ancients needed information on DNA, quantum mechanics, bosons, and the like?
Perhaps they could have benefited from knowledge of pathogens?
Oh, then they would need to know something about optics.
Why not just give them workable rules of hygiene and let them figure out the rest in their own time?
They supposedly started out naked, you know.

Another idiotic Neo dance. This drivel suggests that had they "needed it," it would have been available. The indisputable evidence is that the clowns who wrote those fairy tale were profoundly ignorant of the world, and were making it up as they went along.

You're a bullshit artist and a snide son of a bitch.

I am just saying that, in absence of a scientific explanation for the origin of life or of the universe, some people will go for a mystical one. I don't agree with them, but I cannot put forth a stronger explanation either, and I am aware of that.


You can't prove that, can you?

We're not made of silicates though...

You didn't read the link, did you?

From the linked article:

I browsed it. Why?

You are the one who suggested the bible writers should have prepared for twenty first century man. Well, sorry, all they gave us are the moral standards many are wont to dispute and ignore.

BTW, I know I have made my point when you resort to personal attack.
I did a bing search for "snide son of a bitch" and guess who was second entry on the first page.

You're famous!

No, i did not suggest that, that's a knowing lie on your part. You've used this tired old line of BS more than once, and i'm sure you think you are very clever. "Moral standards?" That would be a joke, if it weren't so ugly. Your "god" ostensibly told people they could enslave or slaughter their enemies. They could dash the brains of children out against stones. They are commanded to put homosexuals to death. They are commanded to put adulterers to death. They are commanded to put unruly children to death. Don't try to feed me that line about moral standards. Now i'm sure you'll come up with crap about your boy Jeebus fulfilling the law (although it nowhere says taht in your book of fairy tales). This question is about the biblical story of creation, not about your selective choice of texts and your warped exegesis.

I am resorting to personal attacks because, after years of you peddling the same deceitful BS, as though we hadn't heard your song and dance again and again and again, you deserve it.

Ah-hahahahahahaha . . . so much for Mr. Scientific Culture.

Laugh all you want. Life appearance on earth remains a mystery.