Is Gen 1-3 "real" or is Atheist Darwinism "Real"?

[BobRyan]

You say that Bob, but go to a forum of "atheist" evolutionists and state your claims. I promise you your arguments will be torn to peices. As someone stated before, I'm only 19 and I've had to stand my ground on this thread alone.

You will find that "the more data you have" the more atheist darwinism flees the ground seeking out another place of refuge where the data is ambiguous and speculation is less refutable.

UTEOTW demonstrated it in triplicate on the thread referenced above - so I have promoted that thread forward to page one of this section of the board for all to read.

Now the "amazing thing" is that UTEOTW actually posted a link to that historic point of failure in his argument "as if" he had done well.

How in the world do those UTEOTW kinds of failed arguments survive? Answer: They rely upon the ignorance of the reader.

And please note - Patterson IS an atheist Darwinist. This is not an attempt to avoid them - I RELY upon them!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Rew_10]

I'm rather confused by the whole Patterson deal, but one thing I did notice was the date. It is nearly 30 years old, and I hate to break it to you, but our understanding of science and evolution has somewhat advanced. And, who is Colin Patterson? He doesn't even show up on Wikipedia.

 

[BobRyan]

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

Dr. Patterson was still working there as late as 16 August 1993. The quote provided from Patterson was what HE gave out in 1993. It references an earlier incident but it is the 1993 text with his own added notes that we are looking at. Your facts are wrong sir.

But your argument is not sound. Patterson argues about the fundamental constructs of science itself saying that "story telling" is not actually SCIENCE.


You argue the point that maybe story telling IS NOW part of science in these few years since Patterson died.


That is not exactly a logical scientific argument on your part.


I am trained in biophysics and software engineering through public universities. My daughter has just graduated from NC State with honors in the software engineering program. I know what it means to deal with atheist darwinists - trust me. I know that it is a hard place to be and I know the "games" they play with the facts.

That is why I find books that "expose their gaming of the facts" so informative.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Not_hard_to_find]

I'm rather confused ...

I must take time to thank you for this thread. It has given me much meat to post on my blog. My students will have this viewpoint as an example, along with opposing ones that accept the Bible as God's word.

I regret that you take Mr. Jefferson's views seriously -- to take from the Bible what you want, not what God has given.

But I appreciate the opportunity to teach my Sunday School class from your viewpoint and help them trust God, not mankind.

May God bless you in your search and instill a thirst for His word.

 

[Alcott]

When I say that the Genesis account of Adam and Eve "is not real", I'm more saying that it has to be merely some sort of metaphor....
I just don't see why Christians feel that they must take so much of the Bible literally. All of the Bible was written by very fallible human beings that CLAIMED to be influenced by God.....
Noah's Ark is not possible within the physical laws of the world.

Obviously, with these quotes and others, there are questions warranted which have not been asked you on this thread...

What is the Bible?-- a fairy book like Grimm's, a history book like Holinshed's Chronicles, an adventure book like Tales of the Arabian Knights, a collection of epics such The Oddysey, Beowulf, and The Tragicall Historie of King Leir, a paranormal book like Harry Potter, an 'anthology series' like The Twilight Zoneor One Step Beyond, or would "legends" better fit what you think it is, such as stories of Robin Hood, St. Andrew and the Lock Ness Monster, or the Norse stories about Vinland?

Just one other ? for now... since you used the term "not possible within the physical laws of the world," do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which also is not?

 

[BobRyan]

The mental and logical gymnastics that bibliolators must go through to hold up a literal Genesis are beyond any rational belief, and without evidence.

I have quoted two atheist darwinists here - Colin Patterson and Isaac Asimov. These are well know luminaries in the world of atheist darwinists - and so I always find it entertaining when lesser-known posters will rail against these icons of evolutionism IF those icons dare to expose some flaw in the pseudo-science religion we know today as evolutionism.

I fully SEE how from an atheist point of view - atheist darwinism for all its flaws is STILL the only option.

What is less clear - is how Christians have allowed themselves to be duped in to settling for those lowered expectations as well joining arm in arm with the atheist darwinists "as if they had no other option".

How sad.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The same is true for the Genesis account of Noah's Ark. Noah's Ark is not possible within the physical laws of the world. I'll happily explain why if asked, but it is entirely clear why it couldn't take place. One could say that God changed the laws of nature and physics to allow it, but if we look to Occam's Razor we can easily conclude that it was either a metaphor or just a human fallacy.

The rule of Occam does not limit the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ the promise of the second coming the new birth the appearances of Christ after His resurrection or the God of Sinai --

Why then do you suppose it limits God in Gen 1??

The argument you use above WORKS for atheists because their STARTING point is "there is no God". From that point all they have left is Occam to tell them "do not believe what the Bible says" -- but why would a Christian limit themselves in that same way?

As for "What is scientifically possible" -- abiogenesis is demonstratably false as can be shown everyday in the lab -- and that is the START of the mythologies of evolutionism.

The problem of chirality with the amino acid chains has NEVER been overcome to produce all the proteins and enzymes NEEDED in a living cell let alone making one -- NOT even "by artificial means"

Not only that - but the PROCESS of evilutionism is also scientifically demonstratably false. Isaac Asimov's confession that the sequence needed for going from molecule to human brain REQUIRES "A massive DECREASE in entropy" is sufficient to sour the deal from the standpoint "of real science".

 

[UTEOTW]

The problem of chirality with the amino acid chains has NEVER been overcome to produce all the proteins and enzymes NEEDED in a living cell let alone making one -- NOT even "by artificial means" .

Let's just take one example here.

And here Bob returns to another of his strawmen.

Bob likes to tell how scientists have "failed" to ever replicate the complete path of abiogenesis in the lab. What he cannot tell you is the name of any scientist who has ever tried such an endeavor. It is not possible to have failed at something that you have not tried to do.

He does this to obfuscate his problem. His problem is that many of the proposed steps for abiogenesis have been tested in the lab and have been found to be workable.

He cannot argue against the actual lab data so he seems to just pretend that it does not exist. He makes his strawman and ignores the data that contradicts it.

But you will notice that he gives us no references. He never addresses the references given to him. He just argues by fallacy.

But here is an example of one specific reference that Bob must ignore because it directly contradicts some of his main assertions. He hopes that you will ignore data that shows how to make optically pure compounds and he hopes that you will ignore that he presupposes an orgin of life path to whic no scientist actually subscribes.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196

Now the paper tells us that borate will both catalyze the formation of the correct right handed ribose sugars and will stabilize the sugars, protecting them from degredation. The same chemicals that react to form the ribose will also react to form adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil, the four nucleobases.

If you add a little phosphate to the mix, the ribose sugars and the nucleobases will combine to form nucleotides. Now, as it turns out, in the presence of clay (specifically montmorillonite) these nucleotides will begin to polymerize and make RNA.

But there is another important aspect of the clay. Fatty acids are delived to earth from space and are also made on earth, hydrothermal vents being an example location. This same clay that will catalyze the formation of RNA will also lead to a spontaneous process in which small vesicles are formed with the fatty acid making a wall and trapping water and the RNA molecules inside.

So we see that two ubiquitous substances such as borate and clay can catalyze the reactions and processes that lead towards something resembling a cell. But there is one more key peice to this puzzle.

In the 1980s it was discovered that RNA could act as something more than a messenger. RNA can perform biological functions similar to proteins. (The first such discovery came when Tetrahymena, a single celled organism, was found to use some RNA as enzymes.) RNA can both replicate itself and perform protein-like functions such as acting like an enzyme. In these forms, they are known as ribozymes. The RNA can store genetic information, copy that information, and carryout protein-like cellular functions. So once we have the RNA inside the fatty acid walls, it is possible that they could perform life functions without the need for DNA and proteins. In this scenario, they would evolve later.

So you see that there is a solution, with lab support and evidence in extant life, that shows your racemized amino acids "problem" to not be a problem. So why don't you accept the evidence.

 

[canadyjd]

Yes I am 19 year old, and an intelligent one at that. And dear DHK, I'm far from typical and would never pretend to know everything. I don't have the qualifications that some of you have, but I'm sure I do have more authority than others as well. While I don't have any degrees(yet), I do read around 400 pages of "leisure reading" a day and keep a 3.87 GPA in an engineering program, so please don't label me as a "typical teenager".

You are arguing everything from a secular standpoint. Perhaps you should spend a few years studying the bible, Greek and Hebrew, Christian history and the things of religion. I suspect you may learn a little humility in the process.

By the way, one of my professors in Seminary earned an engineering degree, before his PhD in Theology. If I remember right, he was a big supporter of Intelligent Design.

Good luck to you, and

peace to youraying:

 

[BobRyan]

Let's just take one example here.

And here Bob returns to another of his strawmen.

Bob likes to tell how scientists have "failed" to ever replicate the complete path of abiogenesis in the lab. What he cannot tell you is the name of any scientist who has ever tried such an endeavor. It is not possible to have failed at something that you have not tried to do.

Here is an example of a totally bogus statement by UTEOTW. The fact that he would pretend that no experiments have been done to try and produced/prove/test the claims of abiogenesis is a blatant attempt to misdirect and mislead the reader.

It is hardly worth responding to a point so easily falsfified by even the most casual perusal of the facts in a library or even on the internet.

The miller experiment is not the only one that has been attempted and yet UTEOTW appears to take a "deny all" position when it comes to exposing the disconfirming evidence coming FROM the labs when it comes to the failed claims of abiogenesis.

Take a strole throug the Museum of Natural history and you will SEE abiogenesis steps laid out for you AS IF science actually had support for it!!

He does this to obfuscate his problem. His problem is that many of the proposed steps for abiogenesis have been tested in the lab and have been found to be workable.

There you GO! After claiming IT HAS NOT been attempted - he now contradicts himself with the glaring fact that it HAS!!

He cannot argue against the actual lab data so he seems to just pretend that his argument holds water "anyway".

This is very instructive -- it is left as an exercise for the reader to see the many varied and twisted directions that UTEOTW's argument takes in JUST the first 3 paragraphs!!

. He makes his strawman and ignores the data that contradicts it.

But you will notice that he gives us no references. He never addresses the references given to him. He just argues by fallacy.

Dead wrong.

Misleading.

Intentional on UTEOTW's part.

The monochiral problem for Amino Acids has been documented and shown time after time... UTEOTW relies upon the ignorance of the reader to make his case..

How sad.

But here is an example of one specific reference that Bob must ignore because it directly contradicts some of his main assertions. He hopes that you will ignore data that shows how to make optically pure compounds and he hopes that you will ignore that he presupposes an orgin of life path to whic no scientist actually subscribes.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196

Now the paper tells us that borate will both catalyze the formation of the correct right handed ribose sugars and will stabilize the sugars, protecting them from degredation.

The problem with this "story telling" on UTETOW's part is that he is NOT telling you that this experiment DOES NOT result in the proteins OR EVEN ENZYMES needed to construct a single cell LET ALONE assembling them.

In other words -- He is arguing that IF ANY right-handed amino acid can EVER be found then they should stop and "declare victory".

But in ALL experiments you ALWAYS get both right and left handed amino acids in the chain -- except for some rare examples where a few specific chains can be "manipulated" -- but the result IS NEVER the proteins needed for a living cell!!

The same chemicals that react to form the ribose will also react to form adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil, the four nucleobases.

If you add a little phosphate to the mix, the ribose sugars and the nucleobases will combine to form nucleotides. Now, as it turns out, in the presence of clay (specifically montmorillonite) these nucleotides will begin to polymerize and make RNA.

#1. The gross manipulation required for the above result is never found in nature.

#2. THERE IS NO example of "RNA LIFE" that does not REQUIRE fully formed DNA host cells (i.e. REAL living cells) to survive!!

So once we have the RNA inside the fatty acid walls, it is possible that they could perform life functions without the need for DNA and proteins. In this scenario, they would evolve later.

The "it is possible" statement above taken outside the junk-science system of "faith based religion" we know as evolutionism is literally translated (in truth) as "it is faithfuly IMAGINED but never found in nature even by devotees of evolutionsim"

So you see that there is no solution demonstrated in the lab! All we have is the "hopeful imagination" of devotees to evolutionism who "imagine for us" that they had ever found "RNA thriving and reproducing without DNA based life forms".

Basically the "RNA world" imagined by devotees to evolutionism has NEVER been found -- it has only been "imagined" and it has never even been MANIPULATED into existence by artificial means -- just "imagined" for us.

When data is lacking and nothing is left in science to SUPPORT the myth -- evolutionism thrives -- but not supposed RNA-based cell colonies! (as EVERY biology student knows actual living CELLS contain cell walls, ribosomes, a nucleus, etc)

Now since we SEE fully formed single celled organisms today composed of DNA - one has to ask - how in the world can abiogenesis survive IF even it's wildest THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS only result in imaging RNA colonies? -- indeed "how".

Yet the story telling that UTEOTW has demonstrated "passes" for science among the devotees of evolutionism BECAUSE atheist darwinists "have no other option" - THEY need a solution no matter how removed from actual science fact.

But what odd quirk of nature would explain the so-called Christian evolutionist doing it?? That is a puzzle that has yet to be solved.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Let's make this simple.

You assert that the chiral problem cannot be overcome.

To show this is not true, it is not necessary for me to show incontrovertible proof of the actual path.

It is sufficient to do what I have done. That is to outline a possible path and show how that possible path has support.

Showing a possible path is sufficient to show that your assertion about it being impossible is not true.

 

[BobRyan]

You claim that the Chiral problem HAS been overcome WITHOUT actually having ANY Chrial solutions for the Proteins and enzymes REQUIRED for a single celled life form!! You propose a "THOUGHT EXPERIMENT" as a possible path -- how sad! Atheist darwinists have carried the REAL experiment as far as they COULD and STILL have not come up with the Proteins and enzymes NEEDED for a single living cell! It is beyond dispute so all you are left with is spinning and gaming the point!

Obviously that is in fact utter failure for your abiogenesis claims.

But then you represent that failure as IF it were success as in your prior post!! And you follow it with your "it is sufficient" wild claim AS IF the reader is going to accept FAILURE as a form of SUCCESS!!!

How in the world can you be satified with such tactics UTEOTW??

Surely you must see that an unbiased objective reader is going to view your "gaming the topic" as a ploy - not as objective truth!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[tragic_pizza]

Even with all the different "varieties" of Baptists on this board, and even with all of the different interpretations of scripture, there is one thing that all Baptists agree on and that is this: the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I have to wonder why you claim to be a Baptist in your profile, yet you do not believe in the Holy inspiration of scripture. ???

It is, Amy, possible to be a Christian, and to believe that Scripture is inspired and authoritative, yet to understand the creation stories of Genesis 1-3 as a matter of theological truth.

I would contend that however the universe was created, God is the Creator. Be it 6,000 or 6 billion years old, God is the Author and Source.

My main contention against evolutionists is that their solid research does not without a doubt point toward a common genetic origin, and that to make it so one has to extrapolate a progression of millions of years of genetic development. Occam's Razor would suggest that a Ceator, who used similar DNA and organ structures because they work in the kind of environment the Creator had in mind, is the simplest explanation.

Not all evolutionists are athiests. Man has evolved to become less hairy over the millenia, taller over the past century, and so forth. The fact that this happens doesn't preclude God, and viewing parts of the Bible as allegory or oral tradition doesn't equate to athiesm.

 

[ccrobinson]

I have no intent on "setting everybody straight" ccrobinson.

Fantastic. I'm very glad to hear this.

He doesn't even show up on Wikipedia.

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia is considered an exhaustive source of information. There is good information there, but it's only been around 5 years. Not long enough in my book to be 100% credible.

Here's a snippet from Researching with Wikipedia, linked here.

However, like all sources, not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive, or unbiased.

Wikipedia is a valuable tool and I've gotten some good information on various topics from it, but I hope you have more sources for your information about this particular topic than just Wikipedia.

 

[Chemnitz]

Boy, I tell you spend a night with the family and things just zoom by you.

When ID partakes of years of rigorous study, debate and peer review, then it will have a place in the classroom. The proponents of ID want to go straight from the conception of the idea to the classroom. As I have said before, I will fight in every way I can to keep ID out of the public school system. If you want your kids to learn about it, be a parent and teach it to them at home. I refuse to allow theocratic "science" to be taught in America. It was the downfall of the Arabic scientific and mathematical world and it will be the downfall of ours if we don't stop it.

You do have a double standard going here. People succeeded in having evolution taught in the classroom before it had undergone years of rigorous study. My contention is that all theories should be taught and explored if we are going to have an intellectually honest process of teaching science. However, we do not have an intellectually honest process, we have a dogmatic process. People will not even concider an option to the theory of evolution because it does not meet their preconceptions of the world. You accuse ID of being theocratic and state that this supposed theocratic nature would stiffle scientific learning and yet you are doing the very thing you supposedly oppose by refusing to let people teach that there are alternative theories concerning the origin of life.

In addition, at its core essence, there is nothing theocratic about ID. A few groups have latched on to it and abused it, but ID makes no claims concerning the intelligence that designed the universe.

 

[Amy.G]

Tragic, Rew obviously has a problem with the truth of the Bible as he has stated repeatedly below. He claims to be a Baptist. Baptists believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God. How can one claim to know God apart from the Bible which is the revelation of God? If we don't trust the scriptures, then our knowledge of God is only our opinion of Him. In this case, we have created our own God. We have created God in our image.

Regardless if I was wrong about the Concil of Nicaea, the prior point I was trying to make was that you were attempting to prove that the Bible was all inspired directly by God by citing passages from the Bible. It's just fallacious.

I believe in the basic messages in the Bible, its the details I have qualms with. DHK, you're using Biblical quotes to support the Bible. The Council of Nicaea, I feel sure, kept out any conflicting texts

.

All of the Bible was written by very fallible human beings that CLAIMED to be influenced by God. The Bible is a text that has been passed through time for 2000 years, and, without a shadow of a doubt, has been manipulated hundreds of times at least. Leon Trotsky was written out of Russian history in the past century, do you not think that a 2000 year old text hasn't been tampered with?

I just feel that more faith should be put in God and less in the Bible

It's very blantant that the Bible is not all factual and you're somewhat deluded if you believe it is factual

I do know God, and I also know that just because a very fallible human being said he/she was inspired by God to write something doesn't mean its true.

You can sit there and believe every bit of the Bible is true and factual, but you will forever be wrong. My relationship with God isn't going to be broken just because a book isn't factual. I feel very sorry for all of you who have such a superficial relationship.

 

[Rew_10]

Then I may not be a Baptist, it doesn't bother me. I was raised a Baptist, and either way, I know I'm going to Heaven. Would you like me to sit here an apologize to you for thinking??

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Thomas Jefferson

While I don't support Jefferson's beliefs, he was a Deist, I definitely agree with that quote.

 

[dan e.]

Then I may not be a Baptist, it doesn't bother me. I was raised a Baptist, and either way, I know I'm going to Heaven.

question....how do you know you are going to heaven? you mentioned that you believe the basic messages....but how do you know those basic messages are true? and if there are discrepencies within the Bible, how do you know which parts are mistakes, and which parts are true (I'm talking matters of theology/doctrine, not the mispelling of a King's name, or something like that.) And if you figure out which parts are true, and which are not true, than what makes you that decision maker? How do you know those parts that you believe to be true are in fact true, and not one of the mistakes? A lot to answer if one only holds to some of the Bible, and not its totality.

 

[Amy.G]

Then I may not be a Baptist, it doesn't bother me. I was raised a Baptist, and either way, I know I'm going to Heaven. Would you like me to sit here an apologize to you for thinking??

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Thomas Jefferson

While I don't support Jefferson's beliefs, he was a Deist, I definitely agree with that quote.

No need to apologize for thinking. God created you that way. Think away. But, believing the Bible does not mean one has "blind" faith. Since you like to read, have you ever read any of Lee Strobel's books? I think he would appeal to your intellect.

Since you don't believe the Bible to be true, or at least many parts of it, do you believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Do you believe He is God?

 

[tragic_pizza]

question....how do you know you are going to heaven? you mentioned that you believe the basic messages....but how do you know those basic messages are true? and if there are discrepencies within the Bible, how do you know which parts are mistakes, and which parts are true (I'm talking matters of theology/doctrine, not the mispelling of a King's name, or something like that.) And if you figure out which parts are true, and which are not true, than what makes you that decision maker? How do you know those parts that you believe to be true are in fact true, and not one of the mistakes? A lot to answer if one only holds to some of the Bible, and not its totality.

Matters of theology and spiritual truth are not in question.

Are you saying that for about the first four hundred years of Christianity, no one was saved because there wasn't a New Testament?