Creation Talk, Origins, Species, and General Discussion

Do you Believe in creation.

We were created by God in his image
7
24%
We Were created by many Gods
1
3%
We are a computer simulation
2
7%
We are engineered by aliens
7
24%
We were the culmination of many processes to make life as we know it
7
24%
We have no way of ever knowing
0
No votes
We have no way of knowing, but only for now
4
14%
I do not really care
0
No votes
Gundum style
1
3%
 
Total votes : 29
Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2119
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:15 am
Location: Cornwall U.K.

PostSun Aug 11, 2013 5:56 pm » by Temps13


Cant vote but I agree with Phoenix..Evolution/Intervention...
Lets at least give some consideration to those who came thousands of years before us & what they say about how we were created..
Since practically EVERYTHING else they said has been proven correct & NOTHING they said proven wrong..
Image Image
IRMENSUL13

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2921
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!

PostSun Aug 11, 2013 8:55 pm » by Truthdefender


Here is an answer for you, If nothing can come from nothing, what did god spring from?
Surely this wasn't nothing?
What is Gods origins, prove to me your position or thought line. Where does it discuss the origins of god and what proof is there?


I have never been able to wrap my head around this question. I can wrap my head around a self existant being which would be God if He exists. Being unable to comprehend something without a beginning, yet denying a first cause of the universe is quite inconsistent.

And again, my ex nihilo comment is quite in context when you compared cloning and dna sequencing with having done what only God could do. Yet He did it out of nothing, or at least that is what is implied. We are using pre-existing building blocks to of code to create or synthesize. I'm sorry you don't see the difference. And cloning and hybridizing is also nothing new, if the texts are to be believed.


Upload to Disclose.tv



In Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5292
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:59 am

PostMon Aug 12, 2013 1:08 am » by Constabul


Truthdefender wrote:
Here is an answer for you, If nothing can come from nothing, what did god spring from?
Surely this wasn't nothing?
What is Gods origins, prove to me your position or thought line. Where does it discuss the origins of god and what proof is there?


I have never been able to wrap my head around this question. I can wrap my head around a self existant being which would be God if He exists. Being unable to comprehend something without a beginning, yet denying a first cause of the universe is quite inconsistent.

And again, my ex nihilo comment is quite in context when you compared cloning and dna sequencing with having done what only God could do. Yet He did it out of nothing, or at least that is what is implied. We are using pre-existing building blocks to of code to create or synthesize. I'm sorry you don't see the difference. And cloning and hybridizing is also nothing new, if the texts are to be believed.


Thanks for cleaning it up a bit. Your comment here is way more direct then the vague statement you made before. You actually articulated your thoughts to words.

I find it an interesting thing, that you will attribute a 'out of nothing' via gods hand. Yet completely deny the natural processes producing life from 'nothing' (which it is not nothing per say). How is it phrased, You can not create something(complexity of life and universe) from nothing.
Yet that is what you seem to be insinuating God did.
Odd... to me. I mean I understand the idea of a prime mover to shape/program things, but the lack of 'thing' and still end up with a result such as life. Is what i am gathering you are saying with a comment of


Truthdefender wrote:Yet He did it out of nothing, or at least that is what is implied.

And yes i acknowledge the 'Or least that is what is implied.' If this is a true statement on your part, saying you are unsure of this aspect, it is fine. We honestly, no matter what side we are on, can only say as much. It comes down to a matter of faith on parts of believers, mathematics and theory on the parts of atheist who wish to argue with christians.
I personally take a different route many others do, in that, it is only beyond our knowledge at this point. At some point it will not be. Maybe in my life time, maybe not. 120+ years ago a mustang(car) was beyond my great great grandfathers comprehension. Let alone the idea of an ipad.
The lack of the data of an ongoing search for answers, does not defacto out to GOD. in my humble opinion.


Science, in almost all instances i can think of, does not even go there(out of nothing), there are elements.. chemicals present, that via a catalyst and the proper conditions of the environment produce life that over many cycles of life experience mutation of sorts to be another catalyst for evolving to the changing conditions and need due to requirements to continue.(this is more Molecular evolution)

You wish to discredit the accomplishments of humans in recreating life, programming, and reprogramming dna by using synthetic means. To either construct dna, program dna, Or build a cell. To link many cells, as to produce organisms, that in turn build large forms of complex life.

You desire recent examples of 'proof' that can be observed, cause i can only assume, you like the idea of pew pewing studies of geology, anthropology, archeology, palaeontology etc. for the purpose of solely saying ' you didnt observe that when it happened, that is not a recent observation.'
I can only assume (cause ive been out of the theology argument realm for awhile) that the phrase, 'you were not there how do you know he said that'., sprang life to the attempt at a counter such as above.

I digress and apologize.

If with the proper building block, (that god would have to use too, which kinda eludes to as much in genesis.. both times..) We can create the artificial (synthetic) circumstances that results in life, the complexity of cellular constructs, or even DNA strands themselves. Then We are achieving the same level of feat, that is metaphorically described in the bible.
Be it from Genesis 1:1-2:3, or Genesis 2:4-25, the pre existing 'code' or 'building block' is in his/their image, and even more so using the elements/chemicals of the 'ground' to do so.
We have done nothing less.

You can 'believe' whatever you want, that is on you. If you wish to deny the achievements of humankind that is again on you. We have been building bacteria and virus, editing and constructing dna strands, I even provided an link to a company that will do just that for you. We have created clones of various animals, and only stop short of humans (that we know of) for moral implications, of deeper philosophical issues.

To me, this aspect of the discussion, in my opinion falls short of only done by god.
If God is a being of such caliber, and he created us in the fashion it is purposed to have been done. Then yes we too are synthetic creations.
So us creating life in a lab, would be synthetic creation.

The idea, or realm of superiority by classification of creations by god, does presuppose a less then factor. Not so much bringing up animal kingdom, as much as say angels, and god Him/themselves.


As to


Truthdefender wrote:I have never been able to wrap my head around this question. I can wrap my head around a self existant being which would be God if He exists. Being unable to comprehend something without a beginning, yet denying a first cause of the universe is quite inconsistent.



I personally view it as such. On the scale at which cosmology approaches the equations of mathematically backtracking to the 'bigbang' or singularity. So too having other variations or new ways of computing given us the same ability, in formula, to go beyond the singularity/big bang.
There, at this point, is not a backstop, or wall proposing the idea at only this point we can account for stuffs in the universe.
You can throw out words like theory, or hypothesis all you like. My point is, where there have been road blocks in the past, new discoveries happen almost daily. Many in confirmation of the data generated.
I can go on about this subject too. If desired, with examples, of theory verified by discovery or testing.
Hell even the rewriting of long held idea(l)s.
My take, is, it's not a closed book with no further level of comprehension to be had. Summable to 'God Did it, lets call it a day'
I just can not board that boat. Nor do i feel the need to. I can wait, and admit that somethings are beyond me. That does not mean they will always be.

I will again close with the statement 'The only easy, short answers are the ones that really do not answer anything'

Because I know for some, my replies are lengthy reading. I do so to try my best to convey through an impersonal medium, a personal impression. My impression, and opinion via the experiences and information I have seen, sought out, or have been enlightened to by others.

Image
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5292
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:59 am

PostMon Aug 12, 2013 2:59 am » by Constabul


Bleever wrote:I think we are boldly faced with a Deistic worldly view based on space time theorems telling us there must be an agent beyond space and time that is responsible for bringing into existence this universe of space time matter, and energy.

This transcendent agent is not an impersonal entity that created space, time and the laws of physics it must be a personal being.

If it is a personal relationship, this would be a worldly game changer. If this deity is non personal, then why? Why all this?


A action that in turn causes reaction. That too causes action/ reaction.
We indeed have a conundrum, and a riddle to be figured out. With unfortunately limited means at this point. It is like trying to imagine living in the days of say Galileo Galilei, to have a understanding things are not what they seem, and limited by the technology and means to find it out. Also in the resistance of the powers that be to his ideals rooted in copernicanism and theories.

We have much better tech today, with more open mediums to explore these things, yet some levels of understanding and ability to go further are still limited. An many popular beliefs still stymie these studies and derail them for many reasons even more, not to be one sided it is not limited to the realm of belief systems but too resource mismanagement, greed, and agendas that too stymie the research process.

In as much, I gather you see the theme in my words playing out.
Which is a bump in the road, verses a finality of a journey.

What we know today, will not be what we know tomorrow. We, with diligence, will have expanded our knowledge base to have a better understanding of the world around us.


Space / Time is another dimension of existence. I do not see the presence of, as being that sort if implication of needing a personal or impersonal entity behind it. Tho no mistake, you are not alone, there are many ideas floating about that are rooted in just such thought.


This is a cool and informative tool.
The Scale of the Universe
http://htwins.net/scale2/?bordercolor=white

Again I am reserved to call 'Impossible' and 'Only in the Realm of superbeing(god)'.
I think we have it in us to achieve amazing feats, mostly as a species, individually we have some limitation.



Image
Image

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Location: Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin

PostMon Aug 12, 2013 3:01 am » by -Marduk-


Panspermia.
________________________________________________________________________________
-= PREDESTINATION: Itz hard to be ze good guy when you turn into a fucking gun =-

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2921
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!

PostMon Aug 12, 2013 5:22 am » by Truthdefender


See Constable that was an excellent response! A little verbose for me because your thoughts seem incomplete, but I concede that that may be due to my unfamiliarity with the subject. I do not fear scientific discoveries... In fact I welcome them, but error on the side of hope that they further the creation paradigm. You misunderstand my frustration wit scientific presupposition toward evolution with a fear that it might be correct. I believe the intellectual gifts to study science, even evolution, are direct attributes we acquired from the creator. He gave us these faculties even though they would leave some astray. Yet this is a whole other theological conundrum.

\And I agree it is not a closed book, but science in its infancy, began for the purpose of 'discovering' God, ... but it has digressed to a field not trying to disprove God, but take His possibilities into no account at all. Which is a gross egotistical mistake. I respect you, whether my combative words declare it or not.. You have challenged me and strengthened my beliefs. If I ask question which demonstrate arrogance or a lack of understanding of the subject matter, by all means check me and teach. I just ask that you spend soe time understanding where I'm really coming from and not pigeon holing me into some box you've put other
Christians or creationists


Upload to Disclose.tv



In Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1728
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:12 am
Location: The loving arms of Christ Jesus

PostMon Aug 12, 2013 6:01 pm » by Bleever


I think this, "We were the culmination of many processes to make life as we know it" - takes the most amount of faith.

Here is my sticking point.

The type of information present in living cells - that is, 'specified' information in which the SEQUENCE of characters matter to the FUNCTION of the sequence as a whole - has generated the biggest mystery in this thread of ours.

You see...No undirected physical or chemical process has demonstrated the capacity to produce SPECIFIED information starting "from purely physical or chemical" precursors.

Do you guys follow me here?

Chemical evolutionary theories have failed to solve the mystery of the origins of first life. Period.

So this is actually a claim that few (up to date with the evidence) mainstream evolutionary theorists now dispute.

And, mixing water and cells and trying to learn from that is far from the answer.

Moreover, how do you go from this set of simple celled life forms to the next without a massive amount of new digital data, this is something that cannot be explained by anyone here, nor any internet search, nor any pseudo science, nor any atheist, nor anybody for that matter.

Here lies the fingerprint of God's coding...it is, based on our info as we have it today, impossible to answer.

- Intelligent Design. ---Best Answer we have and allows for the least amount of faith.

Impossible ---> "We were the culmination of many processes to make life as we know it" - Requires the most amount of faith.
Jesus died our death so that we may receive His life.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:36 pm

PostMon Aug 12, 2013 7:13 pm » by Tuor10


I have never really had much interest in this subject until recently. To be perfectly honest, the whole Creationist versus Evolution argument bored me, because I personally found both arguments flawed and parochial. Now, I have taken a more keen interest. This interest soared after reading a very interesting article about the many genetic flaws Humans' have compared to the animal kingdom. Even primates, the creatures we are supposed to have evolved from, have less genetic flaws. Thus using logic and my limited understanding of DNA and genetics, it seemed to me that Humans' seem to be more a hybrid species, as opposed to a species that followed a linear evolutionary path. Some of the evidence would point to that:

1.Rhesus blood types

2.An abnormal number of genetic diseases

3.Organs that have no real impact on the over-all well being of an individual

4.A spliced DNA code

5.Weak Human exterior: the Human body was not designed to weather the elements. If humans would have evolved in a linear fashion, we would still possess many traits that enabled our primate cousins to survive the harshest extremes that mother nature threw at them.

Evolutionists' point to intelligence as a reason why Humans lost some of their baser animal instincts; but this fly's in the face of evolution itself; for evolution implies improvement; improvement engineered to give a species a better mastery of its environment. I would argue that intelligence is more of an awakening of consciousness, and not a physical manifestation of evolution. I mean, based on what examples we have of evolution in progress – humans would still be able to swing through trees, and have extraordinary strength if we were indeed the products of linear evolution. Our bodies would be far more hardy, as opposed to the weak things they actually are.

I am torn on the nature of human origins; but I am inclined to believe that homo-sapien and other groups related to us, were not the products of natural evolution; nor were we just put here. It seems to me that a third option must be explored.


:cheers:

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5292
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:59 am

PostWed Aug 14, 2013 2:09 am » by Constabul


Bleever wrote:I think this, "We were the culmination of many processes to make life as we know it" - takes the most amount of faith.

Here is my sticking point.

The type of information present in living cells - that is, 'specified' information in which the SEQUENCE of characters matter to the FUNCTION of the sequence as a whole - has generated the biggest mystery in this thread of ours.

You see...No undirected physical or chemical process has demonstrated the capacity to produce SPECIFIED information starting "from purely physical or chemical" precursors.

Do you guys follow me here?

Chemical evolutionary theories have failed to solve the mystery of the origins of first life. Period.

So this is actually a claim that few (up to date with the evidence) mainstream evolutionary theorists now dispute.

And, mixing water and cells and trying to learn from that is far from the answer.

Moreover, how do you go from this set of simple celled life forms to the next without a massive amount of new digital data, this is something that cannot be explained by anyone here, nor any internet search, nor any pseudo science, nor any atheist, nor anybody for that matter.

Here lies the fingerprint of God's coding...it is, based on our info as we have it today, impossible to answer.

- Intelligent Design. ---Best Answer we have and allows for the least amount of faith.

Impossible ---> "We were the culmination of many processes to make life as we know it" - Requires the most amount of faith.


That is cool, it is your opinion. Tho, humbly i submit you are not able to put period points on the subjects you are labeling to them. Also I would say that you have not purposed why one would require more faith then another.

I will try to illustrate what I mean.


culmination of many processes to make life as we know it

Which was generic statement on my part in the poll above. Is inclusive of many disciplines of scientific study. Based from many observations of data being examined, theorized and confirmed through testing, or natural processes to confirm the observations and testing.
It is generic enough to be inclusive of things you may not even consider at first, But i'll stick to the science for now.


SO bare with and try to follow what I am conveying here.
This statement is based from such processes an the general understanding of a few ideas on how it all started.
We (humans) have observed and tested.. Various types of evolutionary progression, in insects, plants, animals, and humans. These changes go to even the cellular level.
http://intl-icb.oxfordjournals.org/cont ... 3/492.full Adaptive Evolution in the Lab (insect in lab)
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/corn/ The Evolution Of Corn (over years of domestication and genetic alteration)
Could, and will if desired, provide additional links for these changes on animals or humans.
To site a few easy examples, are the effects of processed foods, and the changes to various animals through genetic alterations. But I would assume some of these things are already known. Again if curious, just ask.

We know by study of chemicals the composition of minerals, the substances present in the body, and what the body needs to properly function. More so, upon further individual study we know various intolerance, or required adjustments to provide a 'normalized' life. Needless to say the advances in medical studies have come far from the early beginnings.

We know by the study of physics, that those chemicals and elements are formed by protons neutrons electrons, to create atoms. We too can adjust, arrange.. ergo change these. Molecular nanotechnology is a direction we are headed on this scale.
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-molecular- ... cules.html
cool articles if into such things.

We are beginning to, i hope, develop a picture that shows on a small scale our understanding is growing. Small steps here and there, Large leaps from time to time, and huge advancements Meaning 'IMPOSSIBLES' become possible, and eventualities, to everyday procedure.

We are starting to step into the realm of Synthetic biology, which i provided links to earlier.
A way to view it, is to take a view at these couple articles. The sentiment conveyed and then a good look over the site that follows.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... ct_specter 2009
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/ ... 3288a.html 2010
http://www.invitrogen.com/site/us/en/ho ... ology.html 2013

There is a broad picture here, including many elements of science.. extremophiles are another consideration to be had. In the diversity of environment life can develop and thrive.

A main point to the idea of creationism and to a degree intelligent design( depends what one thinks is programmed). Is no new (digital) information is present, All pre existing code, programmed by GOD whatever..
Which, we have observed in nature Frame shift mutation, or other mutations caused by other means, to edit and change this code. We are editing and creating code ourselves.

In nature Nylon-eating bacteria and Radiotrophic fungus are two easily thought of examples of New information being encoded to preexisting code. (thos this statement isnt 100% true. It is a point where frame-shift/duplication is spotlighted as a result)
And because i know this was the buzz a few years ago..

In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate. These substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or, for that matter, any other bacteria), and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.

This discovery led geneticist Susumu Ohno to speculate that the gene for one of the enzymes, 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase, had come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frameshift mutation, Ohno suggested that many unique new genes have evolved this way.

A 2007 paper that described a series of studies by a team led by Seiji Negoro of the University of Hyogo, Japan, suggested that in fact no frameshift mutation was involved in the evolution of the 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase.However, many other genes have been discovered which did evolve by gene duplication followed by a frameshift mutation affecting at least part of the gene. A 2006 study found 470 examples in humans alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eati ... #Discovery


As in the past, the study of various data has led to the predicted outcomes, and eventual confirmation of theories. It too has had it's dead ends, or whole rewrites to be fair. Science does not just look at something, call it, then get it right. Takes a lot of time and effort to produce the necessary information to extrapolate data to provide a predicted outcome based from data gathered.
The 'culmination of many processes to make life as we know it'
Is such an extrapolation.

You feel it is impossible, and requires the most amount of faith.
Various persons found it was impossible for man to fly, for the earth to revolve around the sun, for people to survive going faster the 25 mph, to cure various diseases.

I do not mean to be disrespectful, You have a narrow mind it would seem. Imposing your sense of impossibility. As did those before you who have taken positions of similar stance.

You mention the need of less faith for intelligent design. An while I do to a degree, agree with you in that, to observe the nature of the genetic structure in all its complexity does leave on in awe and left wondering how other then by programming was it accomplished. Considering, science in its infancy, and our limited ability to properly digest that information Does not mean it precludes the possibility of random occurrence.

I do not see this as a matter of faith, which is needed for the religious sourced beliefs.
Which is creationism.
Intelligent design in its various incarnations has been hijacked by a faltering belief. Creationism.
The bible does not mention, or really even elude to the processes we observe at work.

I personally can not see how bible believers can attach onto intelligent design.
It is altering a prescribed set of beliefs, and in such no longer Christianity.
Ive no problem with that.

As i mentioned on the first page, I in some ways try to follow the taoist philosophy, and I know, i know nothing, and thus I am agnostic in many ways. I Am willing to wait and see what comes next, and not put a finite ! to the story before it is over.

I think following the ideals/philosophy that is written and attributed to JC is fine too, in a similar agnostic way as i just wrote.
I personally hate seeing the NT linked to the torah anyway, but it was a way to give a new religion an older root.

Islam did the same thing. as did other religion 100s to 1000s of years before.


A little trick i put in the polling.

We were created by God in his image
We Were created by many Gods
We are a computer simulation
We are engineered by aliens

Are all (arguably) Intelligent design, and were the culmination of many processes to make life as we know it.
First impressions are the hing pin for which we judge meaning.
Not me trying to be clever, just making a point.

No one has Solved mystery of the origins of first life. Religious sources like the bible, are not even searching. It is all provided for you in its texts. At least various other ideas are being pursued by the sciences to address this topic.

An while i do not think i answered this in the best way, I did answer it in the way i think touches on the topics expressed. I am of course expressing my opinion too, based from the discoveries made, and the directions those sciences are taking us.

:cheers:
Image
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1728
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:12 am
Location: The loving arms of Christ Jesus

PostWed Aug 14, 2013 3:45 am » by Bleever


Constabul wrote:We (humans) have observed and tested.. Various types of evolutionary progression, in insects, plants, animals, and humans. These changes go to even the cellular level.
http://intl-icb.oxfordjournals.org/cont ... 3/492.full Adaptive Evolution in the Lab (insect in lab)
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/corn/ The Evolution Of Corn (over years of domestication and genetic alteration)
Could, and will if desired, provide additional links for these changes on animals or humans.
To site a few easy examples, are the effects of processed foods, and the changes to various animals through genetic alterations. But I would assume some of these things are already known. Again if curious, just ask.

We know by study of chemicals the composition of minerals, the substances present in the body, and what the body needs to properly function. More so, upon further individual study we know various intolerance, or required adjustments to provide a 'normalized' life. Needless to say the advances in medical studies have come far from the early beginnings.

We know by the study of physics, that those chemicals and elements are formed by protons neutrons electrons, to create atoms. We too can adjust, arrange.. ergo change these. Molecular nanotechnology is a direction we are headed on this scale.
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-molecular- ... cules.html
cool articles if into such things.

We are beginning to, i hope, develop a picture that shows on a small scale our understanding is growing. Small steps here and there, Large leaps from time to time, and huge advancements Meaning 'IMPOSSIBLES' become possible, and eventualities, to everyday procedure.


Adaptive evolution, yes, however, are you trying to address the 'source code' here? FOr instance take the good ole' fruit flie, we have tried thousands and thousands of times to 'stress' these buggers out and every time they are still flies.

Let's slow down here, respectfully, and let's start by a 'change of kind'. Are we able to demonstrate that or can we agree 'species' don't change their kinds due to the missing and massive amounts of new digital info needed to make it happen.

However, shall we assume...adaptive evolution? (again, not disrespect here just trying to get on the same page).
Jesus died our death so that we may receive His life.


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook