45 replies to this topic

[Bluefinger]

Paranoid Android, on 24 August 2011 - 08:29 AM, said:

Overall I find the reasoning here to be sound.  However there are two issues that I find problem with.  The first is actually somewhat unrelated to your overall thesis, and that is that Genesis 2 might be an account from Lilith.  I find this to be a totally unworkable theory.  There is no evidence that Lilith was ever believed to have anything to do with Adam (certainly not as a first wife).  Lilith appears only once in the whole Bible (Isaiah) and appears as a night bird of some description (such as an owl).  In later Hebrew mythology, Lilith is a demon.  It isn't until circa 10th Century AD (many centuries after even Jesus' time) that someone wrote a text known as the Alphabet of ben Sira.  This medieval text does describe Lilith as Adam's first wife, but it is also clearly a work of parody - intended to make fun of figures throughout biblical history (eg, the Prophet Nathan is said to break wind before every prophecy he makes).  I cannot accept this medieval parody as sufficient evidence to trace back more than a millennia and insert Lilith into the original Garden of Eden.

The other issue I have is with the interpretation of the seven days you provided.  I don't see this passage as early man's observation of evolution as best they understood it.  I certainly agree that it wasn't intended to be written as a piece of scientific writing or 100% history.  You are right that this represents generations of oral tradition relating the history of pre-Abraham Hebrew life, and therefore I would argue that the purpose in writing this (the first 11 chapters of Genesis, though this seems to be focused on chapter 1 and 2) is to give a theological account of our world and its/our relationship with the God that created it/us.

It is therefore unsurprising that the days of creation are mapped out as they are from days 1-6.  They form a neat poetic link between each other.  One issue you seemed to bring up was about days 2 and 3 and how you think they may have needed to be reversed.  I would argue that how it is written is exactly as it should be.  You were trying to fit the story into some broad overview of how a primitive mind might expect to view evolution, but if we remove that assumption, then the days fit together nicely as is.  My overview of the seven days would be as such:

Day 1 - God creates light
Day 2 - God separates the skies from the ocean
Day 3 - God separates water from land

Day 4 - God creates the sun and stars
Day 5 - God creates fish and birds
Day 6 - God creates animals, including mankind

Day 7 - God rests

There is a clear relationship between the first three days and the second three days of creation, hence why I left a line spaced between them.  Notice how the first day in the first section is directly related to day 4 (the first day of the second set of three).  Likewise Days 2 and 5, and days 3 and 6 are directly related.  In short, the correlation is thus:

Day 1 and 4 - God first creates light and then creates the source of that light
Day 2 and 5 - God first creates the skies and the oceans, and then follows that with creating the animals that primarily live in the skies and the ocean.
Day 3 and 6 - God first creates the land, and then follows that by creating animals to live on the land.

Finally, God rests on day 7 - a nice number to end on for Hebrew symbolism, considering that the number 7 was representative of perfection and completion.  Taking this into account it seems obvious that the text is written as intended.  Day 2 and 3 are exactly where they should be, in order to keep the symmetry between the first three and second three sets of days.  

It is likely that there were people on whom the stories of Genesis 1-11 were based, but through the course of many generations the Hebrews used them in their accounts not as scientific accounts of what happened but as I said, as theological approaches to our world and God.  I do not think that the creation accounts represents early man's attempt to observe evolution (though on the balance of ideas I do believe that evolution is most likely the way by which our world developed, though with an intelligent process known as "God" that guided that process to intentionally create the world which we now live in).  

Nor do I find contradiction in the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2.  What we need to remember when reading our modern Bibles is that the chapter/verse breakdown as we have today did not exist.  Nor do those headings which introduce new sections exist in the original.  They are added in as supposedly helpful pointers but they often do the opposite and confuse matters.  This is what I think has happened here.  For example, this is how my current Bible separates the sections of Genesis 1-2:



In particular, the publishers decided to try and be "helpful" in separating verse 3 and 4 with a big bold heading titled "Adam and Eve".  This gives the impression that a new train of thought has started.  That chapter 1 right through to chapter 2:3 was one account of creation, and now comes an entirely new account prefaced with verse 4's "This is the account....".  But a very very slight change can change the entire meaning of this section.  As such:


All I did here was move the publishers heading forward half a verse.  Now there is a massive difference in interpretation.  Verse 4 is no longer the prologue to a new explanation of creation, but is instead now the conclusion to the first section - a final reminder that chapter 1 is the account of creation.  Verse 4b-5 then begins a new section, saying that when God had made the heavens he then created the Garden of Eden in which he placed Adam and Eve.  This is a more specific look not at overall creation as was Genesis 1:2-4 but only at one small section of that creation (Eden).  It's only a very slight amendment to the headings, but I would argue that this is much more appropriate in understanding how the story fits together.

Putting everything together her, the logical conclusion is that the author was attempting to show us what our relationship with God is.  Firstly that he IS the creator, and he was powerful enough to simply "speak" the world into existence ("And God said... and it was so").  This directly contrasts many of the other creation myths of those nations surrounding them.  The Babylonian story of creation, for example, shows Marduk in a battle with Tiamat, and Marduk slices Tiamat in two, and the two halves separate and collect waters, one half becoming the earth and the oceans, the other half becoming the sky.  The purpose of having a single God simply speak the world into existence without these fancy acts of deities battling was purposefully intended to set the Hebrew creation myth as different to everyone else's.  It therefore stands to reason that it was NOT written as direct history, but instead to directly stand in opposition to the myths of other nations.

Secondly, the story (more generally now the entire Genesis 1-11) intends to convey how mankind left on its own slides further and further away from God.  It is shown through three primary events - Adam and Eve, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel.  Each event represents a devolution in our relationship with God.  First one man turns against God by killing his brother.  Then in the Flood narrative the story shows that the thoughts of the people was "only evil all the time" (Genesis 6:5).  Then the total devolution of our relationship with God is encapsulated in the Tower of Babel and the desire to build a Temple to reach God.  At this time it was believed that God dwelt in the heavens and that if we could build something tall enough to reach God then we could become God ourselves.  So note the devolution of humanity from Genesis 4-11:

* One man sins against God (Cain murders Abel)
* Whole world sins against God (their thoughts were "only evil all the time")
* Finally the whole world wants to BE God (build a Temple to reach God on their own, without God's help).  

These three stories combine to form an impressive diatribe against the human race.  Left on our own we totally turned away from the creator and hit our lowest point.  What these stories also show is that it is clearly not an historical account.  History doesn't work this way.  Sure, some individual events can escalate and climax this way - we see this in the fall of Gaddaffi in Lybia (being one example). But over the course of many generations there are rises and falls in fortunes, people turn to and from gods, do good and bad things.  But these three events were chosen by the authors to paint this picture of humanity in a very specific way.  And all in the purpose of setting up chapter 12 and the absolute necessity for which God had to institute a covenant with Abraham and elect him as the founder of the Hebrew race.  

Sorry, I've kind of rambled a bit here.  I had only intended to write a couple of paragraphs but thoughts just kept on piling on each other.  Nevertheless, I think this is all information that may be helpful to you in your exploration of this topic.  Once again I do thank you for your time in posting what you have.  Welcome to UM and hopefully we'll get to see a bit more of you over time

~ Regards, PA

Nice response PA!  I'll definitely keep that in mind for future discussions.  That has got to be the best commentary I've read on the subject yet.

[Copen]

Seeker79, on 24 August 2011 - 01:27 PM, said:

Evolution is directly observed. We can watch bacteria change to over come hostile stimulouse, and we can breed animals even humans for specific traits. Some babies are born with tails, and we have some parts of our anatomy that are now useless.

If anyone comes on here and says that babies born with tails are demons prepare for a tonge lashing ( or in in this case a letter lashing)

That is not evidence of evolution -- one species becoming an entirely different species. It is evidence of natural selection. The fittest survives. You can breed a horse (or any other animal) for desirable attributes; but it always remains a horse. And in fact through the refined breeding that species becomes weaker in many ways and more prone to incompatible with many natural circumstances and have to be carefully nurtured.

[Hideout]

Copen, on 28 August 2011 - 06:34 PM, said:

That is not evidence of evolution -- one species becoming an entirely different species.

One species becoming another species is called speciation. While speciation is a product of evolution, evolution in and of itself is more than just speciation.
Speciation
29+ evidences for macroevolution
Dr. Richard Lenski's long term E.Coli evolution experiment.

[Copen]

RavenHawk, on 26 August 2011 - 06:06 PM, said:

This is true, but not all scripture is included in the Bible.  To some small degree, I consider my work here as inspirational.  But I do not expect that the Book of RavenHawk is going to be canonized into the Bible anytime soon.


That is a bad assumption.  We can assume that most was inspired by GOD.  Paul is merely a man.  If he gets excited, can have his prejudices come out.  Paul is a known xenophobe, but he was “red-hot” for Christ.  Just like what happens to all of us.  Your excitement shows in your reply.


But the Bible is not all of GOD’s word.  It is but a facsimile made by the hand of Man.  Man can never destroy the word of GOD.  As proof, we’ve been brainwashed into only one way of thinking for 1700 years.  That hasn’t changed GOD’s word.  But we’re learning that Man’s interpretations have not always been correct.  John 21:25 states “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”  And at Nicaea, not every scripture found its way into the Bible.  The Bible is merely a book.  It’s a book that contains the recorded inspired word of GOD.  It is not the word of GOD.  That does not mean that the contents of the Bible are infallible.  The Bible has two aspects to it.  A natural one and a supernatural one.  The supernatural is inerrant.  That part can never be destroyed by Man.  The natural one has many translations and versions and filled with contradictions.  And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  GOD gave us a heart and a head to figure it out.


I see what you’re doing with your interpretation.  Although I am highly skeptical, I cannot argue against the whole thing (your interpretation).  I appreciate your version, but you are making the same mistake that Ussher made.  You are too literal with a heavy influence of Catholicism and no regard to nature.  When it comes to the creation, I am pretty much a Deist.  But I can’t say that GOD never dirties his hands to tweak the system from time to time.  I agree with you that some contradictions are due to incorrect interpretations and yours fall into that category (more so than mine).  At first I thought you were bull$hitting but I don’t know you so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.  You need to show how Genesis 2 is a continuation of Genesis 1, instead of the more accepted two different versions of the same event.  The writing styles are different from one to the other, so they can’t be continuous.  I can see how you come up with a Day 8, but this is the first time, I’ve heard of it being part of the seven days of creation.  You need to abide by logic and science.  If science did not matter, then GOD would have never given us the capability of curiosity (and hence science) and would have just said “I did it” and wouldn’t even bother with a story.

I think what is one major error in your interpretation is that you have the man (Gentile) that is made in the image of GOD (1:26) as the inferior to the man (Jew) made from the dust of the Earth (2:15).  And what is the relation of the Gentile of today with those that did not survive the flood?  Although this brings up two possibilities.  One, that the Gentile is a Neanderthal.  Or two, that the Jew is right out of Zecharia Sitchin and was created by the Anunnaki.


It was never stated that Cain’s wife was from Nod or even if they were married there, just that they lived there.  Cain could have been married to her before killing Abel.  It’s all left up to speculation.  And it really doesn’t matter.  We know she existed so if we want to know how, then we are left with natural law and logic to use.  GOD didn’t deem it necessary to tell us any more about her.  He figured that we would use common sense and imagination.


That is an interesting interpretation, bringing Lucifer into it.  You should read CS Lewis’ Space Trilogy.  Lucifer is the Oyarsa of Thulcandra.


OK, your interpretation is getting weirder.  Where does this come from?  FYI, there are three main stocks, Caucasoid, Negroid, & Mongoloid.  And tradition says that they originate from the three sons of Noah.  How can you not have incest when you are following the command to be fruitful and multiply?  Incest was just not an issue or even a law then.  This is what has to happen at first to build up a population.  It happened with Adam and Eve and Noah and his sons.  I seem to recall that the best way to rebuild a population is to have 1 female to 3 males.  The males took turns impregnating her.  And she basically becomes just a baby factory.  This probably goes on for several generations.  This practice ends on its own because there is now more of a selection to choose from.  I wonder if this is the significance of Noah’s three sons?


Are you aware that some think that the Garden was located in the Persian Gulf just a little SE of Basra?  They believe that they know what the Gihon is and have found the remains of the Pishon.


How do you know?  As soon as Eve gave birth for the first time, she probably kept punching out kids.  That’s the nature of things.  The only birth control was abstinence and the both concepts were probably ludicrous to both Adam and Eve.  There was no concept of Planned Parenthood in those days.  We don’t know if Cain was the first born male.  Although, you probably could assume that because of 4:25??  But it doesn’t hint one way or the other if they did or didn’t have daughters during that time.  We tend to look at those times with today’s sensibilities.  Back then women were subordinate primarily because they were baby factories and most women didn’t rate mention.  Again, if they were normal humans, they probably had many sons & daughters.  


It’s not clear that Adam said that as opposed to some commentary added later.  This comment has nothing to do with incest.  A Man's wife could still have been his sister.

Whew!!! Where to start - - - -
"Not all scripture is in the Bible...." If it isn't then God has not kept it, which the Bible says that God promises it is He who will keep it.

"Paul was a mere man . . ." Yes, and so were Adam to Moses. If man under inspiration of God taking dictation were not taking it accurately, then there is none of the Bible that is reliable. If there is one error, there might well be many more. God's word is not a pick and choose book. It is God's word. If He says He is going to keep it, by Providence the false books have been whittled out. The Council of Nicene was a confirmation of what was already held from the first century as true scripture. Paul said his revelations were from God and were so abundant that he had to go through much suffering to keep him humble.

The style of Genesis 1 from Genesis 2 is not the only thing that is different. The sequence of things created is different. The name God reveals Himself is different. Elohim- (plural, implied Triune) in Genesis 1 as opposed to Jehovah - (One God) in Genesis 2. And that is how God has revealed Himself to the Gentiles as Triune and to the Jews as One God. The mode of creation is different. Spoken into being --- as opposed to being formed out of the dust of the ground. These differences show that Genesis is not a re-cap of Genesis 1; but an entirely different creation.

How could anything I wrote imply that Gentiles were inferior to Jews? The Bible says male and female were made in His image. That's not inferior.

I will give you --- the Bible does not say Cain's wife was from the land of Nod but Adam and Eve did not have other sons and daughters until after Cain went to Nod and after Seth had been born. The Bible gives the strict order of births. Adam knew Eve, his wife, .. and she bore Cain. And she again bore his brother Abel.....And cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod ...And Adam knew his wife again and she bore a son and called his name Seth, For God hath appointed me another seed (- another seed) instead of Abel. ...And Adam was eight hundred years old, after he begot Seth and he begot sons and daughters and lived to be 930 years old. And when men (Gentiles) began to multiply and daughters were born to them (without incest because the Gentiles were two couples of black and two couples of white people.  God says we can depend upon the fact that He is the same, never changing-- what is a sin has always been a sin -- and God forbids incest)-- the sons of God (Jews) saw the daughters of men (Gentiles) and took them wives of all whom they chose.

God gave Peter KEYS to unlock things in heaven and on earth. With those keys the scriptures can be understood.
Example: The way God uses numbers in the Bible is a KEY. Numbers in the Bible have a meaning that confirm what is being said. The number 7 is God's number for a complete unit. The number 6 is the number for Gentiles.  That's because Gentiles were created on Day Six. The number 2 is for proof. That's which God requires two witnesses of a crime, etc. The number for 5 is the number for death and sometimes it shows grace from God through a death to self-righteousness. Likewise, the number for 8 is God's number for-- beginning again that which is already. Men (Gentiles) were already created. Creating man (Adam) for a specific purpose on Day Eight was --beginning again that which was already. The specific purpose was that by the sweat of the brow only Adam and his ancestors, the Jews, would be the direct link of receive bread (God's word) to us. Look at any false religion, and it didn't come from a Jew.

Here is another KEY: Hebrew 6: 17, 18
"God willing to show the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath" And that oath was - - "That by TWO IMMUTABLE THINGS, in which is was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation ..."

There it is!!!!! -- Genesis 1 and 2 and any true doctrine can be found twice in the Bible. If it can't be found twice in the Bible we are not to declare it a doctrine and do not have strong consolation that the conclusion is truth.  The creation story is full of twos.

Read the deluge story again. Eight people (called "living creature" -- spiritually alive creature) were saved besides Noah and the other seven. Noah gathered food for those "living creature" --- not for all animals on the boat. They were in that boat for a whole year. No refrigeration. Food had to be kept fresh -- on the hoof. Therefore, these eight Gentiles would have been two black couples and two white couples just like on Day Six in order to keep the different races. The very black people are God's special proof that they did not evolve from Adam and Eve for she was flesh of Adam's flesh and bone of his bone. She had his exact DNA. Blood is manufactured in the bone. Two of the same produce the same. It was a closed loop.

There are other KEYS in the Bible also. As long as there is a contradiction, the truth has not been found. The Bible does not say all people came from Noah's three sons. It tells where the three sons intermingled and migrated and spread. Shem became the true Jewish line Jesus would come through, Japheth went into the European Gentiles and Canaan became the Phoenicians who through their commerce and maritime skills became the servants that brought mathematics and written alphabet, etc. And as prophecied the Gentile line of Japheth came into the Jewish religious tent of Jewish Shem.

Edited by Copen, 28 August 2011 - 08:39 PM.

[Raptor]

Copen, on 28 August 2011 - 06:34 PM, said:

That is not evidence of evolution -- one species becoming an entirely different species. It is evidence of natural selection. The fittest survives. You can breed a horse (or any other animal) for desirable attributes; but it always remains a horse. And in fact through the refined breeding that species becomes weaker in many ways and more prone to incompatible with many natural circumstances and have to be carefully nurtured.

Even  the  most  drastic  changes  can  occur  gradually.  Being  unable  to  locate  the  exact  point  in  which  this  sentence  turns  red  does  not  make  the  entire  thing  blue.

The terms "horse", "red" and "blue" are merely labels that humans have chosen to assign to different things for the sake of convenience. The truth is that these things - animals, colours - exist on a continuum. Nature sees no solid distinctions between them in the way that we do.

Edited by Raptor, 28 August 2011 - 09:28 PM.

[Seeker79]

Copen, on 28 August 2011 - 06:34 PM, said:

That is not evidence of evolution -- one species becoming an entirely different species. It is evidence of natural selection. The fittest survives. You can breed a horse (or any other animal) for desirable attributes; but it always remains a horse. And in fact through the refined breeding that species becomes weaker in many ways and more prone to incompatible with many natural circumstances and have to be carefully nurtured.

Do you know that all dogs came from wolf or cyote like canines. The variations in dogs is increadible. At some point the chiwawa if Selective breeding continued would be so different from a great Dane, that they would no longer be considered the same species. It would just take a few thousand generations or more.

You did not address babies born with tails. What do you think demons? Or genetic throw backs?

Of course changes to animals cause problems. That's how evolution works. It's a shotgun system. Most changes cause problems so the animal has difficulty naturally passing on those genes. Only in the rare circumstance that the gene benefits the propagation of an animal does it continue to exist.

Your suggestion that the unnatural selective breeding causes problems for the animal in it's survivability in nature  is entirely true and consistent with natural selection. the genes are selected by people not natural circumstances. in fact it's another Piece of strong evidence of the theory. There are many many evolutionary dead ends. Being attractive to humans is a sure way to continue to exist. Cats, dogs, corn, wheat, horses, many food species.... Are examples. There are many more cows on the earth because we humans like to eat them. We also make sure that the species evolved in a more and more productive manner. On it's own it's toast. We have long bread out most of it's survivability without us.

[Copen]

Seeker79, on 28 August 2011 - 09:31 PM, said:

Do you know that all dogs came from wolf or cyote like canines. The variations in dogs is increadible. At some point the chiwawa if Selective breeding continued would be so different from a great Dane, that they would no longer be considered the same species. It would just take a few thousand generations or more.

You did not address babies born with tails. What do you think demons? Or genetic throw backs?

Of course changes to animals cause problems. That's how evolution works. It's a shotgun system. Most changes cause problems so the animal has difficulty naturally passing on those genes. Only in the rare circumstance that the gene benefits the propagation of an animal does it continue to exist.

Your suggestion that the unnatural selective breeding causes problems for the animal in it's survivability in nature  is entirely true and consistent with natural selection. the genes are selected by people not natural circumstances. in fact it's another Piece of strong evidence of the theory. There are many many evolutionary dead ends. Being attractive to humans is a sure way to continue to exist. Cats, dogs, corn, wheat, horses, many food species.... Are examples. There are many more cows on the earth because we humans like to eat them. We also make sure that the species evolved in a more and more productive manner. On it's own it's toast. We have long bread out most of it's survivability without us.

No I don't know that dogs come from wolves, etc. The reason being that in the creation story it makes mention of a domestic line (cattle) as opposed to beasts, etc. And the zebra is an evidence of a wild line of horse. Domestic horses did not evolve from undomesticatable zebra nor vice versa. Babies born with a protrusion is not a tail but an abnormality just as a cleft palate is. Such defects do not result in their offspring also having such abnormality. Thus no such evolution.

There is no such thing as an organ that has evolved and no longer of use. Medical science is saying the tonsils and the appendix do have a function.

If the need necessitates evolution, I think we should start now to grow feathers so we can learn to fly and not be so dependent upon foreign oil. Only problem is my offspring are not convinced we need feathers. How am I going to get the need hammered into their independent thinking brains to agree and follow through for the next million generations so that in 10 million years just by wishing it into exisitence we can sprout a covering of feathers so we can fly.  The feathers would have to come all at once. Only a few at a time might turn the next generations off.

[Hideout]

Copen, on 29 August 2011 - 12:42 AM, said:

I think we should start now to grow feathers so we can learn to fly and not be so dependent upon foreign oil. Only problem is my offspring are not convinced we need feathers. How am I going to get the need hammered into their independent thinking brains to agree and follow through for the next million generations so that in 10 million years just by wishing it into exisitence we can sprout a covering of feathers so we can fly.  The feathers would have to come all at once. Only a few at a time might turn the next generations off.

........seriously?

[Rlyeh]

Copen, on 29 August 2011 - 12:42 AM, said:

The reason being that in the creation story it makes mention of a domestic line (cattle) as opposed to beasts, etc. And the zebra is an evidence of a wild line of horse. Domestic horses did not evolve from undomesticatable zebra nor vice versa.

Humans domesticated horses.

Quote

If the need necessitates evolution, I think we should start now to grow feathers so we can learn to fly and not be so dependent upon foreign oil. Only problem is my offspring are not convinced we need feathers. How am I going to get the need hammered into their independent thinking brains to agree and follow through for the next million generations so that in 10 million years just by wishing it into exisitence we can sprout a covering of feathers so we can fly.  The feathers would have to come all at once. Only a few at a time might turn the next generations off.

This is typical creationist nonsense. Perhaps you could stop making straw men?

[Jaguiar]

Copied this:

Evolution Cannot Explain Left-Handed Molecules
28.08.2008 Source: Pravda.Ru
URL: http://english.pravd...ded_Molecules-0

By Babu G. Ranganathan

Millions of high school and college biology textbooks imply that
Stanley Miller, in the 1950's, showed that life could arise by chance.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino
acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by
chance. But, it's not enough just to have amino acids. The various
amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise
sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning
protein molecules. If they're not in the right sequence the protein
molecules won't work. It has never been shown that various amino acids
can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.
Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein
molecules.

Also, what many don't realize is that Miller had a laboratory
apparatus that shielded and protected the individual amino acids the
moment they were formed, otherwise the amino acids would have quickly
disintegrated and been destroyed in the mix of random energy and
forces involved in Miller's experiment.

There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to
bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as
easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various
amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells
of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already
existing sequence of molecules found in our genetic code.

In Nature there are what scientists call right-handed and left-handed
amino acids. However, life requires that all proteins be left-handed.
So, not only do millions of amino acids have to be in the correct
sequence, they also all have to be left-handed. If a right-handed
amino acid gets mixed in then the protein molecules won't function.
There won't be any life!

Similarly, the nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be in a precise
sequence. The sugar molecules that make-up the various nucleic acids
in DNA and RNA must be right-handed. If a nucleic acid with a
left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then nothing will work.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A
partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become
complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate
in the open environment, especially without the protection of a
complete and fully functioning cell membrane. And even having a
complete cell doesn't necessarily mean there will be life. After all,
even a dead cell is complete shortly after it dies!

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic
code and other biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of
more cells. The question is how could life have arisen naturally when
there was no directing mechanism at all in Nature.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the
probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming
into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a
junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

Thanks to popular evolutionist writers like Richard Dawkins, many in
society have come to believe that natural selection will solve all of
evolution's problems.

Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only "select" from
what is produced. Furthermore, natural selection operates only once
there is life and not before.

Evolutionists believe that chance mutations in the genetic code will
produce increasingly more complex genes for natural selection to use
so that life can evolve from simpler species to more complex ones.
There is no evidence that chance mutations can or will provide
increasingly more complex genes for natural selection to act upon so
that evolution would be possible from simpler species to more complex
ones. It's like saying that the random changes caused by an earthquake
will increase the complexity of houses and buildings!

Natural selection is not an active force. It is a passive process in
Nature. Only those variations that have survival value will be
"selected" or be preserved. Once a variation has survival value then,
of course, it's not by chance that it is "selected". But, natural
selection, itself, does not produce or design those biological
variations. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech.
Nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. It is an
entirely passive process. "Natural selection" is just another way of
saying "natural survival". If a biological change occurs that helps a
species to survive then that species, obviously, will survive (i.e. be
"selected"). Natural selection can only "select" from biological
variations that are possible in a species.

In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is
amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that
scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing
has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing
forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have
been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these
new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do
produce life from non-living matter it will only be through
intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any
theory of life originating by chance or evolution.

Even artificial, or synthetic life, is a creation by scientists,
through intelligent design, of a DNA code built from "scratch" which
is then inserted into an already existing living cell.

There simply is no scientific basis for believing life could have
arisen by chance processes even if given the right environmental
conditions to sustain life. What if we should discover life on Mars?

Even if we should discover life on Mars it wouldn't prove that such
life originated by chance. Also, if we do find evidence of life on
Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet -
Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which
could have easily spewed rock and dirt containing microbes into outer
space much of which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek
article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

"We think there's about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars",
says scientist Kenneth Nealson. "You have to consider the possibility
that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth"
[Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12].

This would also explain, as MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown has pointed
out, why some meteorites contain organic compounds because they are
remnants of the original debris spewed from the Earth due to very
fierce ancient geological disturbances and activity.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the
universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected
natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

The best little article ever written refuting the origin of life by
chance is "A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible"
by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish. Dr. Gish presents
"simple" but profound scientific barriers to evolution of life which
aren't mentioned or covered in Johnny's high school biology textbook
or in college textbooks for that matter. This article is truly great!
Dr. Gish's aricle may be accessed at: http://icr.org/article/3140/ .

All this simply means that real science supports faith in an
intelligent Designer behind the origin of life and the universe. It is
only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to
students alongside of evolutionary theory.

Science cannot prove that we're here by either chance or design. Both
require faith. Where will you place your faith?



A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible
http://www.icr.org/article/3140/
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.*

There were no human witnesses to the origin of life, and no physical
geological evidence of its origin exists. Speaking of the origin of a
hypothetical self-replicating molecule and its structure, Pross has
recently admitted that "The simple answer is we do not know, and we
may never know."1 Later, concerning the question of the origin of such
a molecule, Pross said, ". . . one might facetiously rephrase the
question as follows: given an effectively unknown reaction mixture,
under effectively unknown reaction conditions, reacting to give
unknown products by unknown mechanisms, could a particular product
with a specific characteristic . . . have been included amongst the
reaction products?"2 That pretty well summarizes the extent of the
progress evolutionists have made toward establishing a mechanistic,
atheistic scenario for the origin of life after more than half a
century of physical, chemical, and geological research. It is
possible, however, to derive facts that establish beyond doubt that an
evolutionary origin of life on this planet would have been impossible.
The origin of life could only have resulted from the action of an
intelligent agent external to and independent of the natural universe.
There is sufficient space here to describe only a few of the
insuperable barriers to an evolutionary origin of life.

1. The absence of the required atmosphere.

Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular
oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon
(Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would
be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for
life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules
required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that
the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the
atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no
oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be
fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there
would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is
produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere,
converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3),
which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone.
The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down
on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic
molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as
nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an
irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not
evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.

2. All forms of raw energy are destructive.

The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist
primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical
discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive
decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of
destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy
vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason
Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in
his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his
products from the energy source.4 Here evolutionists face two
problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive
Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary
scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further
evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available. In
his comments on Miller's experiment, D. E. Hull stated that "These
short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly
preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of
organic compounds over eons of time. . . . The physical chemist guided
by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics,
cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean
full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates."5

3. An evolutionary scenario for the origin of life would result in an
incredible clutter.

Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some
way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a
significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would
have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids
found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would
have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the
five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other
five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars
would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and
pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other
purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance,
the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all
amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50%
right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively
right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth
would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one
right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar
is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There
would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the
correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have
been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and
there is no solution in sight. All these many varieties would compete
with one another, and a great variety of other organic molecules,
including aldehydes, ketones, acids, amines, lipids, carbohydrates,
etc. would exist. If evolutionists really claim to simulate plausible
primitive Earth conditions, why don't they place their reactants in a
big mess like this and irradiate it with ultraviolet light, shock it
with electric discharges, or heat it, and see what results? They don't
do that because they know there wouldn't be the remotest possibility
that anything useful for their evolutionary scenario would result.
Rather, they carefully select just the starting materials they want to
produce amino acids or sugars or purines or whatever, and,
furthermore, they employ implausible experimental conditions that
would not exist on a primitive Earth. They then claim in textbooks and
journal articles that such and such biological molecules would have
been produced in abundant quantities on the early earth.

4. Micromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules.

It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of
life. Life is the secret of DNA. Evolutionists persistently claim that
the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a
self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a
self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.The
formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected type
of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form
it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids. For DNA
and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of
purines, pyrimidines, sugars, and phosphoric acid. If amino acids are
dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a
protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are
dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly
break apart, releasing energy (the protein is said to hydrolyze). The
same is true of DNA and RNA. To form a protein in a laboratory the
chemist, after dissolving the required amino acids in a solvent, adds
a chemical that contains high energy bonds (referred to as a peptide
reagent). The energy from this chemical is transferred to the amino
acids. This provides the necessary energy to form the chemical bonds
between the amino acids and releases H and OH to form H2O (water).
This only happens in a chemistry laboratory or in the cells of living
organisms. It could never have taken place in a primitive ocean or
anywhere on a primitive Earth. Who or what would be there to provide a
steady input of the appropriate energy? Destructive raw energy would
not work. Who or what would be there to provide a steady supply of the
appropriate building blocks rather than just junk? In speaking of a
self-replicating DNA molecule, evolutionists are reaching for a pie in
the sky.

5. DNA could not survive without repair mechanisms.

DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and ribosomal-RNA, is
destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light,
reactive oxygen species, alkylting agents, and water. A recent article
reported that there are 130 known human DNA repair genes and that more
will be found. The authors stated that "Genome |DNA| instability
caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an
overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA
repair emphasis mine)."6 Note that even water is one of the agents
that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be
dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in
it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it
could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for
DNA repair genes, the article effectively states, DNA could not
survive even in the protective environment of a cell! How then could
DNA survive when subjected to brutal attack by all the chemical and
other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical
primitive Earth of the evolutionists?

What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and
survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA!
But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve
before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for
ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved. Here we
see another impossible barrier for evolution. Furthermore, it is
ridiculous to imagine that DNA repair genes could have evolved even if
a cell existed. DNA genes encode the sequences of the hundreds of
amino acids that constitute the proteins that are the actual agents
that are involved in DNA repair. The code in the DNA is translated
into a messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA must then move to and be
incorporated into a ribosome (which is made up of three different
ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules). Each amino acid
must be coupled to a transfer RNA specific for that amino acid, and
the coupling requires a protein enzyme specific for that amino acid
and transfer-RNA. Responding to the code on the messenger RNA and
utilizing the codes on transfer RNA's, the appropriate amino acids,
attached to the transfer RNAs, are attached to the growing protein
chain in the order prescribed by the code of the messenger RNA. Many
enzymes are required along with appropriate energy. This is only a
brief introduction to the incredible complexity of life that is found
even in a bacterium.

"Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought
this?" (Job 12:9).

Endnotes

1. Pross, Addy. 2004. Causation and the origin of life. Metabolism
or replication first? Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biospheres
34:308.
2. Ibid., 316.
3. Davidson, C. F. 1965. Geochemical aspects of atomospheric
evolution. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 53:1194; Brinkman, R. T., 1969.
Dissociation of water vapor and evolution of oxygen in the terrestrial
atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 74:5355; Clemmey, H., and N. Badham.
1982. Oxygen in the Precambrian atmosphere; an evaluation of the
geological evidence. Geology 10:141; Dimroth, E., and M. M. Kimberley.
1976. Precambrian atmospheric oxygen: evidence in the sedimentary
distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, and iron. Can. J. Earth
Sci., 13:1161.
4. Miller, Stanley. 1953. A production of amino acids under
possible primitive earth conditions. Science 117:528.
5. Hull, D. E. 1960. Thermodynamics and kinetics of spontaneous
generation. Nature 186:693.
6. Wood, R. D., et al. 2001. Human DNA repair genes. Science 291:1284.

*Dr. Duane Gish is Senior Vice President Emeritus of ICR.

Cite this article: Gish, D. 2007. A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin
of Life Is Impossible. Acts & Facts. 36 (1).

This should settle the argument once and for all!

Edited by Jaguiar, 29 August 2011 - 01:34 AM.

[Seeker79]

Copen, on 29 August 2011 - 12:42 AM, said:

No I don't know that dogs come from wolves, etc. The reason being that in the creation story it makes mention of a domestic line (cattle) as opposed to beasts, etc. And the zebra is an evidence of a wild line of horse. Domestic horses did not evolve from undomesticatable zebra nor vice versa. Babies born with a protrusion is not a tail but an abnormality just as a cleft palate is. Such defects do not result in their offspring also having such abnormality. Thus no such evolution.

There is no such thing as an organ that has evolved and no longer of use. Medical science is saying the tonsils and the appendix do have a function.

If the need necessitates evolution, I think we should start now to grow feathers so we can learn to fly and not be so dependent upon foreign oil. Only problem is my offspring are not convinced we need feathers. How am I going to get the need hammered into their independent thinking brains to agree and follow through for the next million generations so that in 10 million years just by wishing it into exisitence we can sprout a covering of feathers so we can fly.  The feathers would have to come all at once. Only a few at a time might turn the next generations off.

You don't understand natural selection. That is evident.  It's one thing to say you don't believe it out of a matter of faith, it's entirely another to try and argue it logically.

We can see the genetic similarity to living primates . We can see the changes in the fossil record. We can follow other animals back in the fossil record. We share diseases with apes, organs, biological processes. We can see how species very in different climates are "adjusted" to fit the environment which is really not the right word.

You want to see a species change into a new one..... So do I. But each change is so minute here will be a huge grey zone before we would consider a change to a new species. It's how natural selection works. If we did see a sudden change I would take that as evidence against natural selection. But in fact we never do. They do not happen.

I'm sure scientists can Identify tail genes if they really want to..... Just no reason to only to satisfy creationists... Which won't be satisfied anyway. Maybe a creationist scientist would take up the task.

All the human feather crap. Seriously? I'll entertain it for a second. If humans started living in trees. You might see in a few hundred generations a race of people more adept at tree climbing. Maybe in a few thousand these humans might start to look quite different from the humans on the ground evolving in different directions. A few hundred thousand the two different species probably would be enough genetically different that they could no longer mate and would be a different species. Keep going along with this. Maybe If there was evolutionRy pressure to jump from tree to tree for food and those who could produce more food had more mates,then you might in few more hundred thousand years start go see some changes that helped them with that. Eventually if the pressure continued you may even one day see wings.... But no the would not be human any more it would be an entirely different species after a few million or more years.

[Seeker79]

Evolution is a clear cut slam dunk.

Origins on the other hand is entirely another matter.

[Rlyeh]

Jaguiar, on 29 August 2011 - 01:28 AM, said:

Evolution Cannot Explain Left-Handed Molecules

Why should it?

Quote

Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino
acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by
chance.

Are all chemical reactions, "chance"?

Quote

But, it's not enough just to have amino acids. The various
amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise
sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning
protein molecules. If they're not in the right sequence the protein
molecules won't work. It has never been shown that various amino acids
can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

I thought polymers were just that? Molecular sequences that came around by chemical reaction, or "chance" as creationists like to call the natural world.

[RavenHawk]

Paranoid Android, on 25 August 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:

Do you have any links to confirm this?  Everything I have read up on Lilith suggests that the first time she is connected to Adam as a wife is from ben Sira.  If there's evidence pre-dating this that I am unaware of that links Lilith and Adam as husband/wife before Eve, I would very much like to see it.

Unfortunately I don’t.  It’s just one of those things that you hear.  Lillith first appears in the Talmud (when it was in oral form) and then Bin Sirah just elaborated on it.  But I think you are right, it appears that lillith doesn’t become Adams wife until Bin Sirah.  I just didn’t catch your focus on the “wife only” part.  I went googling and I did find this site: http://www.bitterwat..._in_Bible.html. It seems that in the time of Bin Sirah, it was basic oral tradition that Lillith was Adam’s first wife.  It would be like we all know what Washington said after he chopped down the cherry tree.  Yeah, it’s written down, but we still don’t know if it is fact or not.

Quote

You are aware that in the Hebrew the words "Adam" and "the man" are identical words?  It's just a matter of how the translators choose to render the word.  Both are acceptable.  There is no impersonal "the man" to compare to the personal "Adam".  Both are the same Hebrew root word.

Yes, I am aware.  That wasn’t what I was getting at.  In ch. 2 “The Man” is used 15 times and then just one “Adam”.  That just seems unusual.  If it was the same word, then why the inconsistency?  Was it context?  Was it an indication of editing later?  What?  In ch. 1 there is no reference to Adam and “Man” (no THE) appears only twice.  I think it’s clear that there are two authors here.  The second one seems fixated on the man for whatever reason.  I can see how Lillith or Eve could have been fixated and for different reasons.

Quote

Oh I see what you mean.  Nevertheless that would still not be my interpretation of things.  I think trying to suggest that Adam was shown the process of evolution (perhaps sped up) and he then recalled it to the best of his ancient knowledge.  I think that's trying to read too much into the passage (my opinion, of course).

Then how did it come into existence in the first place?  Adam had to use his understanding of it in order to create the story.  In lieu of scientific understanding, he put it in poetic pose.  I could see how Adam pestered GOD asking questions on what he saw like a child pestering a parent for help on a homework assignment.  Then finally the parent saying, just do the best you can, I have every confidence in you.

Quote

I don't see how.  The focus of the creation accounts is of the living breathing animals, not the plant life, not the single-cell amoeba.  The ancient Hebrews treated taxonomy different than we do today.  The point is that Days 1-3 set the conditions for days 4-6 to take place.  Ie, making the world ready for the sun, the oceans ready for fish life (which would include algae and other life-forms for the fish to eat), the skies ready for bird-life, and the land ready for animal life (including vegetation for them/us to eat).    

OK, I’ll go with that.  I’m just not convinced.  Again, I like your pattern sequence but I’m going to have to mull on it.

Quote

What do you mean by this?  How do you think I am suggesting Genesis was intended?  As far as I'm concerned, whether it is actually describing creation directly, or whether it is Adam's attempt to understand evolution, or whether it is simply a story to bring the theological point that God was behind it, the point is still the same - God did it.  Therefore it does not affect in any way the message of Christ.

:-)  That’s been my argument.  “Describing creation directly” has been the Catholic, literal version that we have been locked into since Nicaea.  I’m changing gears and trying to view it from Adam’s understanding of it.  And GOD did it, but *we* still need to understand it.  And all of this is fuel for the intellect and in no way affects the message of Christ.

Quote

The chapter/verse outlines and the headings were not added until modern translations (eg, the chapter/verse we have are based on the 1611 KJV, I think). The headings, however, are chopped and changed depending on who the publisher is.  Sometimes they don't have headings at all.  My example was based on the NIV, though my ESV Bible does not include that heading at all (from memory).  The best way to view it is to ignore the chapter/verse references altogether, omit the headings altogether, and find what makes most sense (to me in the example I provided was to push the prologue in 2:4 back to the conclusion of 2:3 instead.  

Outlines may have started with KJV but chapters and verses began with the Tanakh.  I agree that the prologue should be pushed back, but I just don’t see much of a change.  The reason that it’s the way it is is because that’s the way it was done.  And in the same faithfulness of a scribe, continues the tradition.  How steadfast can a faith be if the structure of its scriptures keeps changing?

Yours respectfully,
RH

[ScienceDominates]

Normally the question is "Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution", a more appropriate question is "Do you believe in the evidence of the Theory of Evolution". It's a scientific theory for a reason, the strength of a scientific theory is the evidence, if the evidence is disproved based on newer findings.. the theory must be false or can be modified. This video makes an attempt at presenting the science behind evolution, it gives a timeline of highlights in the discoveries of genetics and some explanations.

At some point the mind needs to weigh the evidence that is accepted by the scientific community vs texts that have many interpretations.