noetic16:

The major problem with my ignorance is that, I just cant find an alternative plausible explanation to the concepts I know and believe in. . .so please help me, since u are the scientist. . ,   , what is the source of the birds as we see them today? did they evolve from the dust?

You made a claim that you have empirical evidence to show that Yahweh created birds magically by uttering words. . .Why are you back tracking? I will love to see you empirical evidence that shows that birds were created from a combination of Hebrew words. . . .I did not even talk about how birds came about you did and you also claim that you have empirical evidence that establish that fact so will you provide it or will you keep displaying your usual antics . . . .

I appreciate your honesty. . . u dont know how plants came about, but I do.
Genesis 2:5-6
5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

verse 8:
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

This is a claim and it does not serve as an evidence. . . .This claim that god created the plants is nothing different from scientist claiming that plants evolve from simpler life forms which evolved from the primordial soup. You will first of all have to show where the garden of eden is first before any body can even take your hypothesis seriously. . . . .

and how do u read the bible?. . .upside down or what?
Genesis 1 gives us a Godly overview of the accounts of creation. . .while Genesis 2 gives us the human overview?

You are only trying to rationalize the two completely different accounts of creation that were written by two completely different authors IMO. . .The bible does not even talk about any of the creation accounts as god's account or man's account, It is you that says so and I believe that there are so many other christians here in nairaland like OLAADEGBU that will disagree with you because they do not see it that way. . .It juts gives it's own hypothesis. . .According to genesis 1 plants were created on the 3rd day and the sun and stars were created on the 4th day, That is what the bible says, Your redefinition does not matter at all here to me, The bible says so and so it remains. . . .You can throw the bible under the bus all you like but I will go by what it says. . .

why then would God have to plant a garden and get it watered, as the verses above shows? why would the garden of eden be subject to the primordial definition of photosynthesis if your assertions are true?
The point is that when God planted the first garden as is depicted in genesis 2 . . . . there was every scientific element (as we know of them today) that makes it possible for a plant to grow and survive.

Where does the bible talk about photosynthesis? The creation account in genesis 1 which is different from the one in genesis 2 says that plants were created on the 3rd day before the sun was created. . .Your redefination is very telling I must say. . .

Gen1: 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was s[/b]o.
Gen 1:12 [b]And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

with due respect. ,  .  I find it absolutely ridiculous that I am being made to reconcile a scientific "attempt" at explaining the solar system with biblical accounts. I find this ridiculous simply because this "attempt" gives an order at which these elements came into existence by stating that the sun came into existence before the moon. . .yet this same scientific notion cannot explain just how the very origins of life as we see it today came into existence? how the pioneer concepts of life kick started? the very source of this life as we know it today? how then does the scientific notion of the sun coming first into existence become plausible?

What has the god did it hypothesis ever explained? NOTHING. . . .What was holding the earth and the other planets in in orbit before the sun was created if we are to go by the genesis hypothesis? How were asteroids, dwarf planets and other bodies in our solar system formed? Did your god speak them into existence using Hebrew too? 

However, Let me indulge you. . . . . . .
1. the bible gives no account of the creation of the other planets. what we know is that at a point in time called the BEGINING, the heavens (which includes the planets in question) were made. Their composition is not discussed as biblical analysis suggest that the earth was made for men.

The biblical account does not mention other planets because the writers of the bible DID NOT KNOW that other planets existed. They did not even know what the stars were, They did not know that the stars were distant suns. . . . .

2. if we analyse the biblical accounts we would realise that there was no form of life on the planet, prior to creation, as such it is plausible to state that the earth (in a lifeless state) existed long before the sun. To state that the earth came into existence after the sun was made is to suggest that the earth consist some form of life at the point of inception. . . . .there is NO scientific notion that makes this claim.

. . . .Pls read about planetary formation and explain to me how the scientific explanation agrees with the genesis hypothesis. . . .Your scientific evidence that the earth in its lifeless state existed before the sun is what?. . . .What was holding the earth and the other planets in orbit before the sun was created since we now know that it is the sun's magnetic force that holds the earth and other planets in orbit and provides them with energy. . .I can't believe that you are making this ridiculous claim. . . .Again what was holding the earth and other planets in orbit and providing them with energy before the sun was created if were are to go by the genesis hypothesis?

3. whether the sun was made before the moon or they were both made on the same day as stated by the bible. . is of little or no difference if u consider the fact that the sun gives the moon its light. . .but the moon rules predominantly at night.
unless I do not understand the context of your poser.

The bible does not say that the sun gives the moon its light. . .The genesis hypothesis says that Yahweh magically created two lights at the same time. . . .How does the moon rule at night, what does it rule over?

and on what basis do u make this assertion?

Google how oil and gas are formed and show me where it says that magical input from a deity is needed for oil and gas to form. . . .

from verse 16 we understand that greater lights were made to give light to the earth. . . . . .would this not imply that the stars had other purposes?

Do the writes of the genesis account know anything about the stars? The answer is NO. . .do they know that some of the stars are just like our sun with planets revolving around them? It is absurd to claim that the stars were created to give light to the earth. . . .gazillion of stars many with planets revolving around them like our sun created just to give light to the earth? You musk be kidding. . . .

by being the predominant "element" in the sky at night.

What about the stars? And what about the days that the moon does not even appear in the night sky?. . . . .The moon is NOT the predominant element in the Night sky, there are stars so many stars that are also predominant in the night sky. . . .Again I ask how does the moon rule over anything? When I come out at night I do not see the moon ruling over anything. . . .

@noetic,

noetic16:
1. would it be out of place to dismiss your innuendos considering that u have completely ignored the major point made in that post which largely reflects on REPRODUCTION. The ability of man to reproduce after his own kind? this is NOT an assertion but a scientific notion buttressed by the ability of u viaro to exist today . . . .

Thanks for replying. And yes, it is out of place to dismiss my reply as innuendos as I did not ignore anything in yours. You would notice that I did not argue against reproduction at anytime, but was concerned that you were using an assertion as an 'empirical evidence' for your postulation - which is not the way science works at all.

what plausible explanation do u have for your existence other than reproduction?

Reproduction does not explain 'existence' in terms of the ORIGIN of life, unless you're quickly forgetting that 'origin of life' is the thrust of this thread. I would rather say that creation explains my existence, and that is the underlying factor for all talk about existence before you can even begin to mention 'reproduction'. Reproduction comes from what is created, and creation explains existence.

objectivity is a vague word and concept. . .but within the subject of discourse, your attempt to reconcile the hindu belief of a "cow God" to the inherent evidence in human reproduction is appalling.

Objectivity is not vague; and I never made any attempt to make such reconciliations as you suggested. My statement is crystal clear and pointed out that an 'assertion' in itself is not 'empirical evidence' in science; and if you want to maintain an assertion as 'empirical', then there is nothing stopping any other religion from making assertions and declaring them to be scientifically valid as 'empirical evidence'. If you maintain the fallacy of 'asssertion = empirical evidence', then the Hindu example of 'cows are God' is an assertion and cannot be dismissed by you; otherwise you would be applying a double standard and playing the tartuffe.

what would be the basis of asserting a scientific basis to a belief that a cow is a god?

Precisely my point, noetic. There is no scientific foundation for validating such an assertion as an 'empirical evidence' in just the same way as arguing that an 'assertion' in the Bible by itself is 'empirical'. Please try and find out the meaning of the term 'empirical' before you try to use it any further.

by God, we refer to the creator of all things, would a reproduced cow, who is unable to decipher a thought on its own, be the creator of his farmer? I dont think so.

Excuse me, noetic - I'm not one who disparages the religions of other people, especially because I do not know what precisely they might mean. Our own Bible says that our God had 'horns coming out of his hand' (Hab. 3:4) - and any careless reader could take that statement as literal as you want to take the Hindu quote. If you believe Hab. 3:4 is true, what is your scientific basis to qualify that as 'empirical evidence'? I'm not trying to defend Hinduism, but you cannot just take a small quote from other people's writs and trail off ignorantly to condemn them by your own hermeneutics.

Lets be objective like u said. . . . .assertions can be assesed based on scientific notions. That some scientists claim that human life comes from dust is just a baseless assertion. .  .when placed under the microscopic analysis of independent scientific thoughts it becomes even more ridiculous to assert that organisms came into being from inorganic substances.

I think you're getting it all mixed up. It is not the statement in itself that settles the matter; but the meaning of that statement (whatever statements) that should be our main concern. There's plenty of verses in the Bible to show that man was made from inorganic substances - 'the dust of the ground' - does that sound ridiculous to you as well? If yes, then you're plainly shooting yourself in the leg and don't even have a grasp of what you're arguing.

why then can we not put biblical claims under such scientific scrutiny? if we can put the claims of men under microscopic analysis. . .why not biblical claims?

That is what I am asking you to do before making a huge assertion plastered with 'empirical evidence', unless you also don't know what 'empirical' means and just go by the nice sound of the word.

noetic16:

Since the bible asserts that man should be fruitful and multiply. . .what exactly stops man from doing so? has man not been reproducing since God knows when?. . .

Like I said, reproduction does not explain existence or the ORIGIN of life. Rather, it is creation you should be looking at. Man cannot reproduce anything if he had not been first 'created'; and reproduction only appears later in the picture after the question of creation has been settled. How do you even read your own Bible? Check the facts:

(a) God first said 'Let us make man' (Gen. 1:26) before He said next 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth' (Gen. 1:28).

But the way it seems you're arguing is to place verse 28 before verse 26 and 27! Your 'reproduction' argument comes late into the picture AFTER the question of creation has been settled.

why do u then want to excuse biblical assertions on the basis of dogmas?

Whose dogma - yours? hehe. Please get a good grasp of the meaning of the words you use in your arguments, otherwise you'll be doing far more damage to your ideology than is necessary.

I would become a learned and better person if and when incontrovertible anomalies are established in my world view and understanding. I am a student of knowledge. . . . .but until then, my knowledge, faith and beliefs remain as they are.

Let me just say that you are only struggling to believe what you have chosen to believe - not because you are persuaded anything can add to your understanding. Please do me this fav: go back and check carefully what is meant by 'anomalies' then I shall share a few stuff with you accordingly. It does not mean therefore that 'anomalies' discredit God and His creation; infact, the Bible does not deny such even though it does not dwell so much on them.

please read that verse again. . . . . .while man was created from dust. . .he did NOT become a LIVING being until he received the BREADTH of LIFE. how then can we disassociate man from the life he carries?

Again, for the umpteenth time: "It still does not negate the very fact that man was created from non-living matter according to Genesis 2:7." What you are doing here is ignore the fact of the non-living matter and put all your arguments on the end of the verse! That is simply saying that you cannot be objective enough to make simple inferences from anything presented before you. Ha-ha!!

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Please sir: look again at that verse and see what the Bible is saying - see the outline:

        (a) man was formed from non-living matter:
             'God formed man of the dust of the ground'

        (b) non-living matter received life:
             God 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life'

        (c) man became what he previously was not: soul -
             'and man became a living soul'

The fact that man was created from non-living matter ('dust') is affirmed in so many verses of the Bible:

       Gen. 3:19  -
      'for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return'

       Job 4:19  -
      'How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay,
       whose foundation is in the dust, . . .'

       Job 33:6 -
       '. .I also am formed out of the clay.'

These and more show that man was formed from non-living matter and that is incontrovertible, deny it all you want! As delineated above, it was after man had been formed from the dust of the ground that he became what he previously was not - he became a living soul!

All these do not mean the same as 'spontaneous generation' or 'equivocal generation' attributed to abiogenesis. And as far as we can see, the verses we are considering in Genesis point to the work of God in having created man from non-living matter: dust of the ground. The difference here is that abiogenesis as a theory attempted to explain the origin of life from non-lving matter all by itself without any intelligent Being - and we know the results: a failure.

Viaro, i do hope you have averted your mind to the fact that only the physical body is said to be formed of the dust of the ground.

"God breathed into him the breath of life and man became a living soul" - is surely enough to suggest that the quality of being a soul (i:e: the real man) came from the "breath" - which is not dust.

So Man (according to the bible text) is not made from dust per se: only the physical aspect is made from dust: the real man (the soul), in bible terms - and this rhymes with my mind: arises from the "breath" of God - which is certainly not said to be dust.

Hope i'm coming across.

^^^ Yes, you came quite well across; but no, I don't take such a simplistic view of man as you put across.

The fact is that man is a tripartite being - that is, he is both spirit and soul and body (1 Thes. 5:23). But when looking at creation, there's no basis to assume that the 'real man' is merely soul. The Bible declares that man became a soul (Gen. 2:7) - but before he 'became' that soul, he was already called 'MAN'.

What is to be understood by 'man became a living soul'?

The question is simple enough to answer: for the 'soul' as used in the creation narratives points to the animating principle in living beings - both man and animals. Two verses compared together would bring this out plainly:

[list]ANIMALS: Genesis 1:21 ~
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

MAN: Genesis 2:7 ~
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.[/list]

There is no difference in the highlighted clauses in the Hebrew of those verses, for they are both the same thing: 'living creature' and 'living soul' = 'נפשׁ החיה' (chay nephesh).

Man is as much a 'living creature' as are the animals. Genesis 1:24 says: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind', and although that verse refers to the creation of land animals, yet the clause 'living creature' is the very same for 'living soul' ('נפשׁ החיה') for man in Gen. 2:7.

The difference is that Gen. 2:7 says that God breathed 'the breath of life' into the nostrils of man, while we are not told the same about animals in the previous chapter. Yet, in describing the animals in Genesis 7:15, they are called 'all flesh, wherein is the breath of life'.

Nonetheless, speaking particularly about man, not only is he described as a tripartite being, but also is said to have an 'outward man' (2 Cor. 4:16), an 'inner man' (Eph. 3:16), and an 'inward man' (Rom. 7:22). These could be said to be descriptive terms for understanding the psychological constituents of man, with the 'outward man' corresponding to what you called the 'physical body'. Yet, in all of this, before man "became" a living soul, the verse in Genesis says that MAN was formed from the dust of the ground.

This very point is often ignored by many of us who rush to the animating principle - the psyché of man commonly referred to as the soul. My replies to noetic were not that life came from the dust; but rather, that we should not ignore the very sequence that is given in Genesis. To ignore the sequence is one of the reasons why materialists would argue for 'spontaneous generation' or 'equivocal generation' attributed to abiogenesis, which is not what Genesis was describing at all. I do hope you understand my perspective.

^^^^ Well said, Viaro

Viaro -

1. Could you assist to distinguish between "the soul" and "the spirit."

2. If man is said to become a living soul (= "living creature" according to the hebrew you laid out) upon the breath of life being breathed into his nostrils - then clearly prior to that act he was not a "living creature". . .pray tell. . .what was he then? And if not a "living creature" prior to the breath of life, could he at that point be called a "man?"

Or simply a lump of clay. . .a lifeless statue which no person can reasonably address as a man anymore than a barbie doll may be addressed as a woman.

I Fear that you are too caught up in word sequences (i.e: man became a living soul. . .) and that reading between the text might be more apt than strict reading of word sequences.

mazaje:

You made a claim that you have empirical evidence to show that Yahweh created birds magically by uttering words. . .Why are you back tracking? I will love to see you empirical evidence that shows that birds were created from a combination of Hebrew words. . . .I did not even talk about how birds came about you did and you also claim that you have empirical evidence that establish that fact so will you provide it or will you keep displaying your usual antics . . . .

is this the best u can come up with. . .how about saying  the magic words"I DONT KNOW" 

This is a claim and it does not serve as an evidence. . . .This claim that god created the plants is nothing different from scientist claiming that plants evolve from simpler life forms which evolved from the primordial soup. You will first of all have to show where the garden of eden is first before any body can even take your hypothesis seriously. . . . .

I did not produce an evidence either, all I did was to correct ur erroneous knowledge that plants came into being (according to the bible) via magic hebrew words

You are only trying to rationalize the two completely different accounts of creation that were written by two completely different authors IMO. . .The bible does not even talk about any of the creation accounts as god's account or man's account, It is you that says so and I believe that there are so many other christians here in nairaland like OLAADEGBU that will disagree with you because they do not see it that way. . .It juts gives it's own hypothesis. . .According to genesis 1 plants were created on the 3rd day and the sun and stars were created on the 4th day, That is what the bible says, Your redefinition does not matter at all here to me, The bible says so and so it remains. . . .You can throw the bible under the bus all you like but I will go by what it says. . .

blah blah blah. . .same old fairy tale.
it does not require rocket science all u have to do is to read the very first verse of Genesis 2 to confirm my assertion.

Where does the bible talk about photosynthesis? The creation account in genesis 1 which is different from the one in genesis 2 says that plants were created on the 3rd day before the sun was created. . .Your redefination is very telling I must say. . .

Gen1: 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was s[/b]o.
Gen 1:12 [b]And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

why the dishonesty now? 
I laid emphasis on the second chapter of Genesis and even went ahead to post the relevant verses. . .  .would u state confidently that the assertions in genesis 2 do not conform with modern knowledge of photosynthesis? 

What has the god did it hypothesis ever explained? NOTHING. . . .What was holding the earth and the other planets in in orbit before the sun was created if we are to go by the genesis hypothesis? How were asteroids, dwarf planets and other bodies in our solar system formed? Did your god speak them into existence using Hebrew too? 

I am fast loosing interest in this one-sided "debate". . . I have explained the source of my ignorance to u, . . . .so why dont u come up with a meaningful alternative? 

The biblical account does not mention other planets because the writers of the bible DID NOT KNOW that other planets existed. They did not even know what the stars were, They did not know that the stars were distant suns. . . . .

ok 

. . . .Pls read about[b] planetary formation[/b] and explain to me how the scientific explanation agrees with the genesis hypothesis. . . .Your scientific evidence that the earth in its lifeless state existed before the sun is what?. . . .What was holding the earth and the other planets in orbit before the sun was created since we now know that it is the sun's magnetic force that holds the earth and other planets in orbit and provides them with energy. . .I can't believe that you are making this ridiculous claim. . . .Again what was holding the earth and other planets in orbit and providing them with energy before the sun was created if were are to go by the genesis hypothesis?

is this not simply ridiculous? what exactly then was the source of the sun according to planetary formation? does the sun have a begining? how verifiable is this claim? are the assertions of planetary formation a scientific notion? does it conform with basic verifiable assertions?

The bible does not say that the sun gives the moon its light. . .The genesis hypothesis says that Yahweh magically created two lights at the same time. . . .How does the moon rule at night, what does it rule over?

The sun and the moon were created. the sun gives the moon its light. . .but the moon rules and reflects predominantly at night. does this stop the moon from being a light on itself?. . .what happens if tomorrow we find out that the sun gets its light from another "element"?
what would happen to ur dogmas?

Google how oil and gas are formed and show me where it says that magical input from a deity is needed for oil and gas to form. . . .

again u miss the point i was making 

What about the stars? And what about the days that the moon does not even appear in the night sky?. . . . .The moon is NOT the predominant element in the Night sky, there are stars so many stars that are also predominant in the night sky. . . .Again I ask how does the moon rule over anything? When I come out at night I do not see the moon ruling over anything. . . .

is this a joke?. . . . .

beneli:

I have been trying to look up on the possible evidence people would have for believing that life can emerge from dust.

Even the genesis hypothesis says that Man was created from dust of the ground as some one has already pointed out.

There is however evidence against living organisms randomly evolving out of dust, whether it is stardust or earthbound dust mixed with water to form an 'organic' soup. This evidence can be found in one of the tools of the scientific process itself-the probability of such an event happening.

The probability of life randomly coming into existence by magic words uttered by some unknown, unseen, untested deity that only the heart feels his or her presence is what exactly? What is that probability that life came into existence by some  unknown and undetected outside force who is said to breath into the nostrils of a man made out of clay or speak the birds into existence? The probability of birds magically springing into existence using words is what exactly?

In the days when it was thought that the universe has always been there, the idea of abiogenesis could be defended by the fact that dust had literarily all the time in the world to go through an infinity of random relationships, of which one would spark off the process of complex life evolving. Unfortunately, we did not have all the ‘time’ in the world for this to happen.

But we have the time for life to magically spring into existence using words?

We now believe that the universe is time-limited and as such even Richard Dawkins, one of the atheist’s messiahs, admits that "the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard."(2)

Like mazaje I will also like to see credible sources that which shows that Dawkins really made such comments.

Let’s look at this probability thing a little closer. How low a probability do mathematicians believe makes an event essentially impossible? The French Mathematician Émile Borel has estimated 10 (raised to the power minus 50); and William Dembski , a research professor in philosophy and mathematician has calculated a lower limit of 10 (raised to the power minus 150), based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the age of the universe (3).

The probability of abiogenesis is far, far less! Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated a probability of ~10 (to the power minus 313) to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins (4). Simple self-sustaining life requires ~1,500-2,000 gene products, and Sir Fred Hoyle-English astronomer, known for his contributions in stellar nucleosynthesis, estimated a probability of ~10(raised to the power minus 40,000) to obtain 2,000 enzymes in a random trial! (5).

What do we have here? What we have here is mathematician, a philosopher/mathematician, and, according to a quick google search, an electrical engineer. How reliable are they as sources for knowledge in biology or Chemistry? For biological or Chemical questions, I'd rely on the overwhelming consensus of professional biologists over a couple of mathematicians and an electrical engineer.

The summary is that abiogenesis is not only unproven, it is mathematically impossible!

Abiogenesis is not mathematically possible but magic is mathematically possible eh? Where is the probability calculus that shows that magical words created the birds of the sky? WHERE IS THAT PROBABILITY CALCULUS? How has the magic of creation according to the genesis hypothesis ever been proven? As far as I know that hypothesis is also UNPROVEN.

Are evolution and creation mutually exclusive?

viaro:

@noetic,

Thanks for replying. And yes, it is out of place to dismiss my reply as innuendos as I did not ignore anything in yours. You would notice that I did not argue against reproduction at anytime, but was concerned that you were using an assertion as an 'empirical evidence' for your postulation - which is not the way science works at all.

Reproduction does not explain 'existence' in terms of the ORIGIN of life, unless you're quickly forgetting that 'origin of life' is the exert of this thread. I would rather say that creation explains my existence, and that is the underlying factor for all talk about existence before you can even begin to mention 'reproduction'. Reproduction comes from what is created, and creation explains existence.

Can u stop running around? are u debating out of an obligation or what?  

how have I related the origin of life to reproduction? . . . .  . did u not read the following?

Lets be objective like u said. . . . .assertions can be assesed based on scientific notions. That some scientists claim that human life comes from dust is just a baseless assertion. .  .when placed under the microscopic analysis of independent scientific thoughts it becomes even more ridiculous to assert that organisms came into being from inorganic substances.
why then can we not put biblical claims under such scientific scrutiny? if we can put the claims of men under microscopic analysis. . .why not biblical claims?
Since the bible asserts that man should be fruitful and multiply. . .what exactly stops man from doing so? has man not been reproducing since God knows when?. . . why do u then want to excuse biblical assertions on the basis of dogmas?

from the above was I not clear that I wan simply placing biblical assertions under the same analysis as I place scientific notions?  

Objectivity is not vague; and I never made any attempt to make such reconciliations as you suggested. My statement is crystal clear and pointed out that an 'assertion' in itself is not 'empirical evidence' in science; and if you want to maintain an assertion as 'empirical', then there is nothing stopping any other religion from making assertions and declaring them to be scientifically valid as 'empirical evidence'. If you maintain the fallacy of 'asssertion = empirical evidence', then the Hindu example of 'cows are God' is an assertion and cannot be dismissed by you; otherwise you would be applying a double standard and playing the tartuffe.

what is this?  

Precisely my point, noetic. There is no scientific foundation for validating such an assertion as an 'empirical evidence' in just the same way as arguing that an 'assertion' in the Bible by itself is 'empirical'. Please try and find out the meaning of the term 'empirical' before you try to use it any further.

would it be rude to say the above is dumb?
what assertion are we talking about?. . .  . .does the assertion in itself not suggest reproduction?. . . how then does ur being alive not serve as an empirical evidence for reproduction?  

Excuse me, noetic - I'm not one who disparages the religions of other people, especially because I do not know what precisely they might mean. Our own Bible says that our God had 'horns coming out of his hand' (Hab. 3:4) - and any careless reader could take that statement as literal as you want to take the Hindu quote. If you believe Hab. 3:4 is true, what is your scientific basis to qualify that as 'empirical evidence'? I'm not trying to defend Hinduism, but you cannot just take a small quote from other people's writs and trail off ignorantly to condemn them by your own hermeneutics.

This is a pathetic attempt at being politically correct. . I am not interested.

I think you're getting it all mixed up. It is not the statement in itself that settles the matter; but the meaning of that statement (whatever statements) that should be our main concern. There's plenty of verses in the Bible to show that man was made from inorganic substances - 'the dust of the ground' - does that sound ridiculous to you as well? If yes, then you're plainly shooting yourself in the leg and don't even have a grasp of what you're arguing.

That is what I am asking you to do before making a huge assertion plastered with 'empirical evidence', unless you also don't know what 'empirical' means and just go by the nice sound of the word.

And does any of those verses describe man as having LIFE until he received the breadth of LIFE?  

viaro:

Like I said, reproduction does not explain existence or the ORIGIN of life. Rather, it is creation you should be looking at. Man cannot reproduce anything if he had not been first 'created'; and reproduction only appears later in the picture after the question of creation has been settled. How do you even read your own Bible? Check the facts:

I never said it does, all I did was express my surprise that non-creationist theories (evolution) did not lay claim to reproduction. I do not consider this an accident. if we have no witness at the point of creation who saw God create man. . .we can at least see men reproducing.

(a) God first said 'Let us make man' (Gen. 1:26) before He said next 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth' (Gen. 1:28).

But the way it seems you're arguing is to place verse 28 before verse 26 and 27! Your 'reproduction' argument comes late into the picture AFTER the question of creation has been settled.

since I never said so. .  . .and what would be the basis of the above? 

Whose dogma - yours? hehe. Please get a good grasp of the meaning of the words you use in your arguments, otherwise you'll be doing far more damage to your ideology than is necessary.

Let me just say that you are only struggling to believe what you have chosen to believe - not because you are persuaded anything can add to your understanding. Please do me this fav: go back and check carefully what is meant by 'anomalies' then I shall share a few stuff with you accordingly. It does not mean therefore that 'anomalies' discredit God and His creation; infact, the Bible does not deny such even though it does not dwell so much on them.

1. is this not misplaced. how have I brought belief notions into play when science and evidences are being discussed. must u twist words to suit ur baseless assertions?

2. I just checked the meaning of the word "anomalies" again. . . .and I am awaiting ur further education on the subject.

3. would it amount to u reading upside down (on ur part) to falsely deduce that I stated that ur perceived anomalies discredit my belief in God and His creation? . . .  .of what use is this? 

Again, for the umpteenth time: "It still does not negate the very fact that man was created from non-living matter according to Genesis 2:7." What you are doing here is ignore the fact of the non-living matter and put all your arguments on the end of the verse! That is simply saying that you cannot be objective enough to make simple inferences from anything presented before you. Ha-ha!!

Please sir: look again at that verse and see what the Bible is saying - see the outline:

        (a) man was formed from non-living matter:
             'God formed man of the dust of the ground'

        (b) non-living matter received life:
             God 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life'

        (c) man became what he previously was not: soul -
             'and man became a living soul'

The fact that man was created from non-living matter ('dust') is affirmed in so many verses of the Bible:

       Gen. 3:19  -
      'for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return'

       Job 4:19  -
      'How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay,
       whose foundation is in the dust, . . .'

       Job 33:6 -
       '. .I also am formed out of the clay.'

These and more show that man was formed from non-living matter and that is incontrovertible, deny it all you want! As delineated above, it was after man had been formed from the dust of the ground that he became what he previously was not - he became a living soul!

All these do not mean the same as 'spontaneous generation' or 'equivocal generation' attributed to abiogenesis. And as far as we can see, the verses we are considering in Genesis point to the work of God in having created man from non-living matter: dust of the ground. The difference here is that abiogenesis as a theory attempted to explain the origin of life from non-lving matter all by itself without any intelligent Being - and we know the results: a failure.

at what point in creation did man become a LIVING being? was it when he was formed of dust . . . . or when he received the breadth of life?

@Mazaje and tonyb,

Tell me one thing; If i were to show you that Mr Dawkins did actually say what i wrote that he said, would you believe it? I doubt it.

You know why i doubt that you would? It’s because that’s the way we are. Most of us like to hold on, as strongly as possible, to whatever it is that confirms our world views; and would deny, even at the risk of coming across as dogmatic, those things that contradict our beliefs. Both deists and atheists are guilty.

The statistical improbability-or probability-depending on which side you break your boiled egg from- of abiogenesis happening would make more sense if life had already been created out of dust in a laboratory environment and the questions now was about the probability of this event being able to happen in nature, as a random event. That’s when all this would make sense to me. But life has not been brewed in laboratory conditions out of dust-or nonorganic matter. No matter how much scientists try to modulate and regulate laboratory conditions to enable them to try out new improved versions of the Miller-Urey experiment, in nature or in the laboratory, dust has only yielded dust. Life breeds life. Life out of dust would be a supernatural event.

The contention here is that the renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, said what he said, which seemed to give credence to Mr Borel’s calculation. This is why the source of the statement and Mr Borel’s credentials are questioned. But Richard Dawkins did say what he said and Mr Borel is quite competent to do his calculations.

Let’s start with Emile Borel.

Statistics and probability are within the remits of mathematics.  Emile Borel, who gave the disputed probability figures that i mentioned, was a mathematician and a renowned one at that. In addition to the much debated law (which i will admit is merely a  ‘suggestion’, as some websites say, and not a mathematical ‘law’ per se), Mr Borel had a lot of other things named after him, so i doubt he was the charlatan that is being insinuated here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Borel

Now on to what the renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins did or did not say. 

Mazaje, if the link that i gave does not lead to a ‘creationist website’ would you accept that Mr Dawkins said those words? Well, the link actually is from the Telegraph. Here’s what it says; ‘It is true, Dawkins responds, that the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard. But how much more improbable is the idea of an intelligent designer capable of taking all that scrap and turning it into a 747? After all, that intelligent designer, a far more complex entity than a Jumbo Jet, had himself somehow to be created’. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3655792/I-dont-believe-in-Richard-Dawkins.html

I wonder where the renowned biologist and atheists got it from that an ‘intelligent designer’ ‘had himself somehow to be created’? Is that his mental block?  Perhaps he got it from his prejudiced rich imaginations of what an ‘intelligent designer’ can or cannot be. The same place that he got the assumption that those who believe in God must be deluded. I vote that the esteemed professor is not competent to make such a statement. He should leave the aspect of what God should be able to do or not do to philosophers, and let Psychiatrists decide whether that belief constitutes a delusion or not, 

But let’s be honest with ourselves here. Does it really matter what Mr Dawkins said or did not say? Does it really matter if abiogenesis is mathematically improbable or not? To be honest, it doesn’t to me. The materialist scientist does not want to believe that anything supernatural is divine in origin. For them it must be a coincidence in spite of all odds of such a coincidence not happening; if it is not a coincidence, then it has to be an unexplained phenomenon on the brinks of being understood by ‘science’.  That’s their world view. It leaves no room for an Intelligent ‘designer’ greater than man.

For the deist, the supernatural is an act of the divine: be it what happened at the dawn of time when out of nothing, the wonders of creation were born; be it the transformation of a human being whose existence had been so violated by the tragedies of living, that she loses the ‘humanity’ to love and trust again, until an act of kindness nudges her back on the path of believing in humanity again; be it a barren woman who suddenly finds herself pregnant. The deist believes that God works through man and through nature. He can intervene ‘naturally’ or ‘supernaturally’.

God does not need man to tell Him how to intervene in the affairs of man. He can show Himself in the little things-some of which can be explained away by science; He can also show himself through the big things, like in giving life to dust; a phenomenon which others may just dismiss as coincidence.

But let’s agree that it’s about what we want to believe or not believe in. It’s not about the ‘science’-or lack of science-behind our belief systems.



Ps: My use of the masculine gender for God is one of those traditions of man.

Beneli are you a Christian or a deist?

I use the word 'deism' loosely, to highlight belief in God as opposed to those who do not believe in God-the 'atheists'. But within that vague 'umbrella' of 'deism', i consider myself a Christian. Why do you ask?

Men and brethren   these una lengthy non-evidence-based conjectures sha!  

toneyb:

Beneli are you a Christian or a deist?

beneli:

I use the word 'deism' loosely, to highlight belief in God as opposed to those who do not believe in God-the 'atheists'. But within that vague 'umbrella' of 'deism', i consider myself a Christian. Why do you ask?

So he can put you into a nice, cute little box and tie a red bow on top . Right Toney?

JeSoul, how u dey today? Happy New Year, dear

Beneli, I think Deists are examples of theists (who are exclusive to atheists), just like Christians are examples of theists. But then, you can be a Christian and a Deist at once, cos Deists believe in God on the basis of reason (not revelation) and Christians believe in God on the basis of revelation. I guess maybe you do the two?

Deep Sight:

Are evolution and creation mutually exclusive?

I think it depends on who you ask and what you mean by 'evolution'. It's irrefutable that man interacts with his environment and is changed by it, both socially and-indeed-biologically.

Some creationsists, like myself, would say that 'evolution' and creation are not mutually exclusive. Where there is a problem is the point at which 'evolution' started. My personal opinion is that people who shout from their rooftops about how they 'evolved' from apes, derive some sort of perverse sexual gratification-at par with bestialism-from that belief! But then i encounter people who nurse all sorts of unconventional and, at times-outrightly perverse and deranged-thoughts everyday in my line of job, so i can be excused for thinking that way!

ancel:

JeSoul, how u dey today? Happy New Year, dear

My brother I dey . Still trying to do my best impersonation of Sherlock Holmes and solve the puzzle that is you. . . if you're feeling like divulging, I am more than willing to entertain

Beneli, I think Deists are examples of theists (who are exclusive to atheists), just like Christians are examples of theists. But then, you can be a Christian and a Deist at once, cos Deists believe in God on the basis of reason (not revelation) and Christians believe in God on the basis of revelation. I guess maybe you do the two?

Nice way of putting it.

beneli:

@Mazaje and tonyb,
You know why i doubt that you would? It’s because that’s the way we are. Most of us like to hold on, as strongly as possible, to whatever it is that confirms our world views; and would deny, even at the risk of coming across as dogmatic, those things that contradict our beliefs. Both deists and atheists are guilty.

Actually I am not a person that is opposed to any kind of evidence, If you follow my post you will see that all I ask for is objective evidence for postulations.

The statistical improbability-or probability-depending on which side you break your boiled egg from- of abiogenesis happening would make more sense if life had already been created out of dust in a laboratory environment and the questions now was about the probability of this event being able to happen in nature, as a random event. That’s when all this would make sense to me. But life has not been brewed in laboratory conditions out of dust-or nonorganic matter. No matter how much scientists try to modulate and regulate laboratory conditions to enable them to try out new improved versions of the Miller-Urey experiment, in nature or in the laboratory, dust has only yielded dust. Life breeds life. Life out of dust would be a supernatural event.

And has any supernatural event ever been detected? Has any supernatural entity ever been detected giving life to non living things?

Statistics and probability are within the remits of mathematics.  Emile Borel, who gave the disputed probability figures that i mentioned, was a mathematician and a renowned one at that. In addition to the much debated law (which i will admit is merely a  ‘suggestion’, as some websites say, and not a mathematical ‘law’ per se), Mr Borel had a lot of other things named after him, so i doubt he was the charlatan that is being insinuated here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Borel

Let me repeat what I said earlier,  How reliable as sources for knowledge in biology or Chemistry is the opinion of a Mathematician? For biological or Chemical questions, I'd rely on the overwhelming consensus of professional biologists over a couple of mathematicians and an electrical engineer.

Now on to what the renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins did or did not say. 

Mazaje, if the link that i gave does not lead to a ‘creationist website’ would you accept that Mr Dawkins said those words? Well, the link actually is from the Telegraph. Here’s what it says; ‘It is true, Dawkins responds, that the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard. But how much more improbable is the idea of an intelligent designer capable of taking all that scrap and turning it into a 747? After all, that intelligent designer, a far more complex entity than a Jumbo Jet, had himself somehow to be created’. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3655792/I-dont-believe-in-Richard-Dawkins.html

Now that you have put the whole quote in context, I agree and I also believe that Mazaje will agree that he made those comments. The entire quote in context is quite different from the part that you pasted earlier.

I wonder where the renowned biologist and atheists got it from that an ‘intelligent designer’ ‘had himself somehow to be created’? Is that his mental block?  Perhaps he got it from his prejudiced rich imaginations of what an ‘intelligent designer’ can or cannot be. The same place that he got the assumption that those who believe in God must be deluded. I vote that the esteemed professor is not competent to make such a statement. He should leave the aspect of what God should be able to do or not do to philosophers, and let Psychiatrists decide whether that belief constitutes a delusion or not, 

I believe that he is just trying to say that if the theist believes that un-caused existence can be possible(God), What then is wrong when the atheist believes that the universe is un-caused?  

But let’s be honest with ourselves here. Does it really matter what Mr Dawkins said or did not say? Does it really matter if abiogenesis is mathematically improbable or not? To be honest, it doesn’t to me. The materialist scientist does not want to believe that anything supernatural is divine in origin. For them it must be a coincidence in spite of all odds of such a coincidence not happening; if it is not a coincidence, then it has to be an unexplained phenomenon on the brinks of being understood by ‘science’.  That’s their world view. It leaves no room for an Intelligent ‘designer’ greater than man.

How can we objectively get to know or meet this intelligent designer? If this intelligent designer exist then where is he? Are you one of the theist that believe that god is every where? I can not see him here. Because sceince does not have the knowledge for now does not mean that we should ascribe anything that we want which are mostly non evidential to unknown phenomena, Mazaje said it best when he came up with this analogy, Here is what he said I one of his post on this thread,  "A better example lets assume that nobody really understands gravity or can provide substantial evidence for it. If I tell you that it exists because some invisible vacuum demons hidden in the Earth that cannot be experienced or seen by mere mortals put it there, What will you say? The fact that you cannot disprove that hypothesis, nor replace it with a better one, doesn't make it right at all. It makes it highly speculative at best, and more likely, just a convenient fiction. This my friend is the same with the God did it hypothesis. . . .It explains nothing beside the fact that it is only the default position of I don't know by the proponent of the god hypothesis as my man toneyb has said on another thread. . . . ."

For the deist, the supernatural is an act of the divine: be it what happened at the dawn of time when out of nothing, the wonders of creation were born; be it the transformation of a human being whose existence had been so violated by the tragedies of living, that she loses the ‘humanity’ to love and trust again, until an act of kindness nudges her back on the path of believing in humanity again; be it a barren woman who suddenly finds herself pregnant. The deist believes that God works through man and through nature. He can intervene ‘naturally’ or ‘supernaturally’.

Has any supernatural force ever been objectively detected? The way the god hypothesis has been structured makes it possible for some of its claims to be objectively detected, For example we are told that god intervenes in the world, such a supernatural intervention can be objectively detected if the hypothesis is true by why are we yet to objectively detect any supernatural intervention any where? How does god supernaturally intervene in the planet earth for instance?

God does not need man to tell Him how to intervene in the affairs of man. He can show Himself in the little things-some of which can be explained away by science; He can also show himself through the big things, like in giving life to dust; a phenomenon which others may just dismiss as coincidence.

But let’s agree that it’s about what we want to believe or not believe in. It’s not about the ‘science’-or lack of science-behind our belief systems.

JeSoul:


So he can put you into a nice, cute little box and tie a red bow on top . Right Toney?

Happy new year to you

Jesoul lovey, check your inbox in 5 minutes for the answer to that puzzle. You are about to be shocked

ancel:

JeSoul, how u dey today? Happy New Year, dear

Beneli, I think Deists are examples of theists (who are exclusive to atheists), just like Christians are examples of theists. But then, you can be a Christian and a Deist at once, cos Deists believe in God on the basis of reason (not revelation) and Christians believe in God on the basis of revelation. I guess maybe you do the two?

I don't like to be 'boxed in' as Jesoul suggested.

So if there is an umbrella term for people who believe in God, then that's what i should be using instead of 'deism'. I try to make an argument for the existence of God against His non existence. 'Atheism' should not segregate. It's either God exists or He doesn't. The nature of that God is left to the different interpretations of the individual that believe in Him, subject to their own exposure; culture; traditions and yes, revelation. The 'atheist' ideally should not busy themselves with arguing about His nature as they don't even accept that He exists!

With regards to the place of 'reason' and 'revelation', I would say that there is a limit to what reason can do for us in our attempts to walk with God. Revelation plays a great role as well; but i think the starting point is 'Faith'. Without 'faith' its impossible to even start on the journey. So for me it has been first of all faith, then came revelation and then reason. People should sort out issues of their faith first. Revelation will come to those who are earnest and honest.

toneyb:

Happy new year to you

Toneyb my dude! my brother the same x10 to you. I wish and pray this will be a fulfilled year for you and yours 

ancel:

Jesoul lovey, check your inbox in 5 minutes for the answer to that puzzle. You are about to be shocked

Lol, I am off to be shocked . . .

beneli:

I don't like to be 'boxed in' as Jesoul suggested.

So if there is an umbrella term for people who believe in God, then that's what i should be using instead of 'deism'. I try to make an argument for the existence of God against His non existence. 'Atheism' should not segregate. It's either God exists or He doesn't. The nature of that God is left to the different interpretations of the individual that believe in Him, subject to their own exposure; culture; traditions and yes, revelation. The 'atheist' ideally should not busy themselves with arguing about His nature when they have not accepted whether He exists or not.

   It would be wisdom for many here on NL to heed this charge.

With regards to the place of 'reason' and 'revelation', I would say that there is a limit to what reason can do for us in our attempts to walk with God. Revelation plays a great role as well; but i think the starting point is 'Faith'. Without 'faith' its impossible to even start on the journey. So for me[b] it has been first of all faith, then came revelation and then reason. People should sort out issues of their faith first.[/b] Revelation will come to those who are earnest and honest.

This very short quote is so loaded. I'd like to comment further but it would go off on a tangent.

Beneli: the umbrella term you refer to is "Theist", I think. And you are spot on about faith, which allows for revelation, and then reason follows up on the revelation.

Heb 5:13  For everyone who continues to feed on milk is obviously inexperienced and unskilled in the doctrine of righteousness (of conformity to the divine will in purpose, thought, and action), for he is a mere infant [not able to talk yet]!
Heb 5:14  But solid food is for full-grown men, for those whose senses and mental faculties are trained by practice to discriminate and distinguish between what is morally good and noble and what is evil and contrary either to divine or human law.

Heb 5:13 says he is a mere infant (Greek: nepios), unable to talk (reason properly) who drinks in revelation continuously but does not scrutinize it with reasoning, as in Heb 5:14 with strong meat (solid food)

According to John, too, there are three levels of growth in the knowledge of God: little children, young men, and fathers. I will like to draw parallels with experential knowledge of God by faith, by faith and revelation, and by faith, revelation and reasoning.

1Jn 2:12  I am writing to you, little children, because for His name's sake your sins are forgiven [pardoned through His name and on account of confessing His name].
1Jn 2:13  I am writing to you, fathers, because you have come to know (recognize, be aware of, and understand) Him Who [has existed] from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have been victorious over the wicked [one]. I write to you, boys (lads), because you have come to know (recognize and be aware) of the Father.
1Jn 2:14  I write to you, fathers, because you have come to know (recognize, be conscious of, and understand) Him Who [has existed] from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong and vigorous, and the Word of God is [always] abiding in you (in your hearts), and you have been victorious over the wicked one.

JeSoul, it's in your inbox now. Thine inquisitiveness has made thee whole Please reply if you have the heart  Sorry it's 40 minutes late, it's thanks to unexpected circumstances!

This man noetic16. .  what's really biting you?  Please I don't have the time to shout, otherwise your complaining would have served me a good pastime. Anyhow, in brief and very quickly:

noetic16:

Can u stop running around? are u debating out of an obligation or what?  

No. Are you?

how have I related the origin of life to reproduction? . . . .  . did u not read the following?

I read it; but if you reasoned out my reply carefully, you'd see that the whole body of my rejoinder was informed by the basic question you had asked, viz: "what plausible explanation do u have for your existence other than reproduction?" Did you miss my answer to that? Rather than get upset, you ought to have checked it out carefully before recycling the retired 'reproduction' argument - that is just simply a non-starter.

from the above was I not clear that I wan simply placing biblical assertions under the same analysis as I place scientific notions?  

And your results are. . . ? Did you even place any Biblical assertion under scientific scrutiny? I didn't find where you did so; rather, you just plainly plastered the term 'empirical evidence' to a Biblical assertion - which is nothing more than 'just-say-so-and-that's-empirical-evidence'. That, my dear sir, is NOT science, nor does it even stand up to the dignity of pseudoscience. . . you're just in the middle of nowhere (a sort of nullibicity)!!

what assertion are we talking about?. . .  . .does the assertion in itself not suggest reproduction?. . . how then does your being alive not serve as an empirical evidence for reproduction?  

Your drivel is quite dumb, yes sir. Are you so far gone as to understand that reproduction does not explain the existence or the ORIGIN of Life? Is it by 'reproduction' that the Bible tells you things began to exist. . . or are you confusing these terms for pure comic relief?  I said plainly that CREATION explains existence, and 'reproduction' is only late in the scheme of things - it came AFTER the question of creation itself has been settled! If you have problems with that, please calm down and show me in the Bible that it is not creation but rather 'reproduction' that explains the ORIGIN of life.

And does any of those verses describe man as having LIFE until he received the breadth of LIFE?  

What did the verse Genesis 2:7 call that being before it mentions 'soul'?

noetic16:

I never said it does, all I did was express my surprise that non-creationist theories (evolution) did not lay claim to reproduction.

Said who?
This guy. . do you even understand E[/b]VOLUTION . . or you're just reacting to the '[b]E'-word??

I do not consider this an accident. if we have no witness at the point of creation who saw God create man. . .we can at least see men reproducing.

Bro. . 'reproduction' and 'creation' are not the same things. Creation came first and settled the question of our existence BEFORE the talk of reproduction. That latter ('reproduction') is IMPOSSIBLE without the former ('creation'). This is as simply as I can put it for you.

Now, if you put on your thinking cap and still have the lights switched off upstairs, could I kindly caution that you look where you're going lest you summersault!

1. is this not misplaced. how have I brought belief notions into play when science and evidences are being discussed. must u twist words to suit your baseless assertions?

I didn't twist anything; but 'assertion' is NOT equal to 'empirical evidence'. Period.

2. I just checked the meaning of the word "anomalies" again. . . .and I am awaiting your further education on the subject.

What meaning did you get after checking? Please let me know, and then tell me what you would like me to share in that accord, and I shall oblige.

3. would it amount to u reading upside down (on your part) to falsely deduce that I stated that your perceived anomalies discredit my belief in God and His creation? . . .  .of what use is this?  

I didn't even attribute that to you; but just so that my readers would not misread me, I noted that 'anomalies' in nature do not discredit God or Hos creation. If my making that point hurt no one else but you, tough luck.

at what point in creation did man become a LIVING being? was it when he was formed of dust . . . . or when he received the breadth of life?

At what point did the verse call that being 'MAN' - was it after or before the 'breath of life'?

ancel:

JeSoul, it's in your inbox now. Thine inquisitiveness has made thee whole Please reply if you have the heart   Sorry it's 40 minutes late, it's thanks to unexpected circumstances!

  words fail me miserably right now. Shocked? a gross understatment  .

Beneli, sorry for the offtopic stuff

Hi beneli, I like your points; but here's something that caught my attention:

beneli:
With regards to the place of 'reason' and 'revelation', I would say that there is a limit to what reason can do for us in our attempts to walk with God. Revelation plays a great role as well; but i think the starting point is 'Faith'. Without 'faith' its impossible to even start on the journey. So for me it has been first of all faith, then came revelation and then reason. People should sort out issues of their faith first. Revelation will come to those who are earnest and honest.

That's quite sweet. For many others, though, it follows another sequence:

(a) revelation --> faith --> reason
(b) reason --> faith --> revelation
(c) reason --> revelation --> faith

Perhaps, it all depends on each person's pespective and experience.

viaro:

This man noetic16. .  what's really biting you?  Please I don't have the time to shout, otherwise your complaining would have served me a good pastime. Anyhow, in brief and very quickly:

No. Are you?

I read it; but if you reasoned out my reply carefully, you'd see that the whole body of my rejoinder was informed by the basic question you had asked, viz: "what plausible explanation do u have for your existence other than reproduction?" Did you miss my answer to that? Rather than get upset, you ought to have checked it out carefully before recycling the retired 'reproduction' argument - that is just simply a non-starter.

And your results are. . . ? Did you even place any Biblical assertion under scientific scrutiny? I didn't find where you did so; rather, you just plainly plastered the term 'empirical evidence' to a Biblical assertion - which is nothing more than 'just-say-so-and-that's-empirical-evidence'. That, my dear sir, is NOT science, nor does it even stand up to the dignity of pseudoscience. . . you're just in the middle of nowhere (a sort of nullibicity)!!

Your drivel is quite dumb, yes sir. Are you so far gone as to understand that reproduction does not explain the existence or the ORIGIN of Life? Is it by 'reproduction' that the Bible tells you things began to exist. . . or are you confusing these terms for pure comic relief?  I said plainly that CREATION explains existence, and 'reproduction' is only late in the scheme of things - it came AFTER the question of creation itself has been settled! If you have problems with that, please calm down and show me in the Bible that it is not creation but rather 'reproduction' that explains the ORIGIN of life.

What did the verse Genesis 2:7 call that being before it mentions 'soul'?



Said who?
This guy. . do you even understand E[/b]VOLUTION . . or you're just reacting to the '[b]E'-word??

Bro. . 'reproduction' and 'creation' are not the same things. Creation came first and settled the question of our existence BEFORE the talk of reproduction. That latter ('reproduction') is IMPOSSIBLE without the former ('creation'). This is as simply as I can put it for you.

Now, if you put on your thinking cap and still have the lights switched off upstairs, could I kindly caution that you look where you're going lest you summersault!

I didn't twist anything; but 'assertion' is NOT equal to 'empirical evidence'. Period.

What meaning did you get after checking? Please let me know, and then tell me what you would like me to share in that accord, and I shall oblige.

I didn't even attribute that to you; but just so that my readers would not misread me, I noted that 'anomalies' in nature do not discredit God or Hos creation. If my making that point hurt no one else but you, tough luck.

At what point did the verse call that being 'MAN' - was it after or before the 'breath of life'?

  Kai! @Noetic, Viaro this is a call to arms oh! 

@toneyb, howdy. Let me quote yours and connect it to a line from beneli's:

toneyb:

Now that you have put the whole quote in context, I agree and I also believe that Mazaje will agree that he made those comments. The entire quote in context is quite different from the part that you pasted earlier.

@beneli, here's the line in yours I'd like to address:

beneli:
The contention here is that the renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, said what he said, which seemed to give credence to Mr Borel’s calculation. This is why the source of the statement and Mr Borel’s credentials are questioned. But Richard Dawkins did say what he said and Mr Borel is quite competent to do his calculations.

I've tried to look up that quote which appears to have been attributed to Dawkins, I mean this quote:

We now believe that the universe is time-limited and as such even Richard Dawkins, one of the atheist’s messiahs, admits that "the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard."(2)

The source referenced for that quote (2) is Telegraph.co.uk, which featured an article reveiwing Dawkins' book by Kenan Malik. The reviewer also has a blog - kenanmalik, where the same article is posted.

I think the point is that Mr. Kenan was paraphrasing Dawkins' misplaced argument, so that the quote in parenthesis ("the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard" is not directly Dawkins' but is rather Kenan's. I don't know if the said quote is directly from Dawkins' book - if one reads through page 113 of The God Delusion, especially this:

[list]'The argument from improbability is the big one. In the traditional guise of the argument from design, it is easily today's most popular argument offered in favour of the existence of God and it is seen, by an amazingly large number of theists, as completely and utterly convincing. It is indeed a very strong and, I suspect, unanswerable argument - but in precisely the opposite direction from the theist's intention. The argument from improbability, properly deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist. My name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.'
[/list]

Just something I'd like you to consider in regards to to yours, beneli, that 'But Richard Dawkins did say what he said'.