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

@carloslebaron,

carloslebaron wrote:

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...

So, to summarize:
1. The structure of a cell had to be created by somebody.
2. Science states that the universe is like a computer with information everywhere and the Bible claims (citation?) the same.
3. The description of the creation of the universe in the Bible is similar to (citation?) the Big Bang Theory in the sense that it involves expansion.

I guess my question is why you believe that the parts of a cell had to be created by "somebody" as opposed to being created by evolution by natural selection.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

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.

Nope. You've summarized Genesis. You haven't provided any evidence that it's true. I note that this was in a different thread, though. However, your summary isn't evidence of truth.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

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.

Quote:
Consciousness is simply the result of computing power of the right type of computer reaching a certain level.

You can't prove that, can you?

No, but it makes sense and therefore, I am not going to assume a supernatural explanation. I imagine that someone will eventually prove it by demonstration, which is something I do not look forward to.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

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

It does not except in the sense that no camera recorded it for us to view. The hypothesis that a molecule (or crystal) eventually formed which could replicate itself is plausible. The Earth did, after all, have quite a long time and quite a lot of ocean in which to generate random chemical reactions. Together with the various forms of energy around (e.g. light and heat), I find it plausible that something like this would have occurred with sufficient time.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

It would be so much easier to discuss things with you if you were able to keep track of the conversation. You wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

And we have no clue how DNA or even RNA could replicate themselves without the required cellular machinery...

In fact, we do have "a clue" and have had for more than 50 years. The Cairns-Smith clay hypothesis, as i've already noted, which inspired Miller-Urey's experimentation.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

...And we have no clue how DNA or even RNA could replicate themselves without the required cellular machinery...

Who is talking about DNA or RNA? All I said was that some molecule formed which did it. In fact I specifically said that it had to be a much, much simpler molecule than DNA.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

I advise people to investigate the "RNA world" hypothesis, especially Mr. Scientific Culture.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

You've summarized Genesis. You haven't provided any evidence that it's true. I note that this was in a different thread, though. However, your summary isn't evidence of truth.

Did you find anything in my post that is scientifically invalid?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I had to think a while about this post because I do not wish to discount your extensive knowledge. But I no longer post to convince you or Blue or Brandon or Frank or Farmer or any of the solid unbelievers I have come to consider as friends, regardless of whether the feelings are reciprocal.

Some, I realize, may prefer I stand a little closer to the edge of the cliff. Perhaps a few believers may wish as much, I don't know. I don't necessarily post for them, either. I post for those who read but refrain from posting. There is an average of 10 times the views for each post in a new thread, more in seasoned threads.

So, when I post a comment in courtesy and good faith only to receive a schoolyard response, others are reading. Use your best judgment.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The Miller–Urey experiment produced amino-acids, not RNA, so it's irrelevant to the discussion. Amino-acids are the "elements" proteins are made of, not RNA. You would know that if you knew even the most basic biochemistry.

This said, other similar experiments have synthetised sugars that RNA is made of (among other things). But no experiment (to my knowledge) has ever produced RNA abiotically, nor shown how RNA could replicate itself without the assistance of fairly complex proteins, which have a snowball chance in hell of ever appearing by chance. If you know of one, pray tell.

Until we can produce life in a test tube, there will always be people who don't believe it can be done, and that some other explanation must be true. And no amount of speculation will convince them.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

No, but it makes sense and therefore, I am not going to assume a supernatural explanation.

It may make sense to you but it doesn't make sense to me... And until we observe the emergence of consciousness in a super-computer, it's pure speculation. If you can speculate freely that consciousness results from computation power, others are going to speculate that it results from some deity. Your idea is just as magical as theirs, until you can actually prove it.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I advise people to investigate the "RNA world" hypothesis, especially Mr. Scientific Culture.

You might wish to do that yourself so you can know what you're talking about... Oh, I forgot, you don't understand enough of chemistry to understand the corresponding wikipedia article.

Your scientific literacy is piss-poor, Set.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

That's pretty hilarious from someone who had to have his nose rubbed in the implications of the Cairns-Smith hypothesis, and the Miller-Urey experiments and still didn't get it. In the time you've been at A2K, i've not only seen no evidence that you're particularly scientifically literate, but i've seen a good many examples of you flatly not knowing what the hell you're talking about. It is precisely because i understand chemistry that i'm able to understand Cairns-Smith, and the Miller-Urey experiments, and follow that through to the RNA world hypothesis.

You always boast about your scientific knowledge, but i've never seen any evidence of it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I would remind you that you said we don't know how RNA could have arisen, not how it did arise. Your best bet now is to retreat in to a linguistic defense, and claim that what you patently said is not what you meant. We may not know how RNA did arise, but we do know how it could have arisen.

1 Reply

@neologist,

I understand that you use th is form to attempt to disseminate your propaganda. That doesn't alter that you have nothing substantive to say on the topic of the thread, that you play idiotic exegetical games and that you're just puking up the drivel you've subjected us to for years and years. You know, on the schoolyard, if you constantly play the fool, you attract the kind of remarks you complain about.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
You've summarized Genesis. You haven't provided any evidence that it's true. I note that this was in a different thread, though. However, your summary isn't evidence of truth.
Did you find anything in my post that is scientifically invalid?

No, but you're summarizing Genesis, not providing evidence that it's true, which is what the thread title asks.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The Miller–Urey experiment produced amino-acids, not RNA, so it's irrelevant to the discussion. Amino-acids are the "elements" proteins are made of, not RNA. You would know that if you knew even the most basic biochemistry.

This said, other similar experiments have synthetised sugars that RNA is made of (among other things). But no experiment (to my knowledge) has ever produced RNA abiotically, nor shown how RNA could replicate itself without the assistance of fairly complex proteins, which have a snowball chance in hell of ever appearing by chance. If you know of one, pray tell.

Until we can produce life in a test tube, there will always be people who don't believe it can be done, and that some other explanation must be true. And no amount of speculation will convince them.

I have not suggested that the first self-replicating chemical was DNA or RNA. The theory is that it was "some molecule." I specifically said, when I introduced the concept that the molecule must have been much simpler than DNA.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
No, but it makes sense and therefore, I am not going to assume a supernatural explanation.

It may make sense to you but it doesn't make sense to me... And until we observe the emergence of consciousness in a super-computer, it's pure speculation. If you can speculate freely that consciousness results from computation power, others are going to speculate that it results from some deity. Your idea is just as magical as theirs, until you can actually prove it.

I doubt that computers such as we make them have this capability. Man-made computers have been designed to follow instructions we input. Animal brains function differently. Also, there is a lot of difference between saying that a nerve center capable of perceiving its environment and making decisions as to how to stay alive would eventually become aware that it exists and saying that a magic, supernatural guy made the world. It is not just as supernatural.

The point is, my speculation about a certain type of computer of a certain level of sophistication is perfectly plausible and not comparable to a belief in truly magical forces. Furthermore, if, indeed, there is no supernatural explanation for the universe or the mind, then the conclusion that the brains of higher animals achieve consciousness through some aspect of their structure is pretty much the only alternative. Are you suggesting that there are mystical, non-scientific forces at work?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

theres a whole discipline of "bio-polymers" that has been gathering steam. The rules of chemistry require "instantaneous" reaction time because of entropy.
The Miller Urey experiment was put down because the early atmosphere wasn't like the "flask" contained. Now wee see that incoming bolides, hydration plumes of serpentine (along island arcs) and "black smokers" along mid oceanic ridges can serve up as energy and feedstock chemicals.
XNA's are theorized to be somewat late after the first appearance of life on the planet. biopolymers and a cell wall, then something for use as a data recorder.
Even when we manage to discover how to create life in a bowl, that wont necessarily be the answer, it may be ONE of the POSIBLE answers.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

neologist wrote:

Did you find anything in my post that is scientifically invalid?

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, but you're summarizing Genesis, not providing evidence that it's true, which is what the thread title asks.

Do you define truth as epistemological certainty? Certainly, I believe what I posted was not false and provides a basis for the rest of the account. I claimed the first 2 chapters explained how we came to be and why we are here. I see no inaccuracy in the essential order of creation as provided in chapter 1. And I see no hardship in the commands to fill and subdue the earth while avoiding a certain fruit. As for filling the earth to overpopulation, consider what occurs when you ask the waiter to fill your water glass.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know