toldailytopic: How did life come into existence?

[Nick M]

Interpretation is not the issue. To make it an issue is intentional perversion. You either believe God when he says he made the earth in six days, or you don't.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Interpretation is not the issue. To make it an issue is intentional perversion. You either believe God when he says he made the earth in six days, or you don't.

Or you can accept that it's allegory which isn't a perversion intentional or otherwise. You can claim otherwise all you like and it still won't mean anything...

:e4e:

 

[Lovejoy]

Or you can accept that it's allegory which isn't a perversion intentional or otherwise. You can claim otherwise all you like and it still won't mean anything...

:e4e:

All this brings up a much more pertinent question: how did Arthur Brain come into existence? I posit that he was, in fact, formed out of an accident involving cloning and a time machine. Perhaps he was just dropped off here intentionally by Zaphod Beeblebrox (for his own protection)? Is he here by chance, or is it planned? Has he been here for millions of years, or merely six thousand? Who knows?

That was a paragraph with some meaningless claims! (I am pretty sure it was the Beeblebrox one.)

 

[Arthur Brain]

All this brings up a much more pertinent question: how did Arthur Brain come into existence? I posit that he was, in fact, formed out of an accident involving cloning and a time machine. Perhaps he was just dropped off here intentionally by Zaphod Beeblebrox (for his own protection)? Is he here by chance, or is it planned? Has he been here for millions of years, or merely six thousand? Who knows?

That was a paragraph with some meaningless claims! (I am pretty sure it was the Beeblebrox one.)

I think you've been drinking too much. You're intoxicated sir!

 

[Lovejoy]

I think you've been drinking too much. You're intoxicated sir!

I am in Eugene, OR with my wife and kids. My wife is attending a conference on sports medicine, and I am being slowly tortured to death by the presence of a toddler in non-childproofed environment. Combine that with the fact that it is cold, has not stopped raining, and the food stinks. I may just be losing my mind!

 

[Stripe]

Why can't you recognize that Selaphiel is a Christian? Either your observational skills are sadly lacking or....well who knows what....

Who is Selaphiel? :idunno:

For that matter, who are you? :idunno:

A six thousand year old earth? Literally interpreting a passage in the bible is not 'evidence'.

Nobody said it was. :idunno:

Why do atheists so love to make up ideas for their opponents and argue against those?

Between Sela, Alate, PB and noguru amongst others, you've had a whole lot more than 'something' already.

:rotfl: Oh, I remember this lot! None of you has the first clue about science or the scientific process past what you can Google or what you can copy from posters that post before you.

:darwinsm:

:mock: ... er .. 'something'. :chuckle:

It's not exactly going into any details is it?

Why do atheists so love to make up ideas for their opponents and argue against those?

And why would you respond to the question:

How is God making living things according to their kind and to reproduce according to their kind not scientific?​

with:

It's not got enough details​

?

Are you an atheist?

Or you can accept that it's allegory which isn't a perversion intentional or otherwise. You can claim otherwise all you like and it still won't mean anything...

Allegories are written to convey meaning based upon well known and well understood concepts. What is "Six days" based upon? What does it mean if it does not mean "Six days"? Why should we take a passage written as a historical account, written at the very front of a book as an introduction to everything, backed up by every other scriptural reference to the account and take its central premise (that God created the universe and all in it in six days) to be an allegory?

Why should we do that?

There is only one rational answer. The only rational answer is so that you can claim man's understanding does not contradict the word of God.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Who is Selaphiel? :idunno:

For that matter, who are you? :idunno:

Sela's the person you implied was an atheist with your usual 'inimitable' flair. And this 'who are you' rubbish is typically tired and lame as well.

Nobody said it was. :idunno:

Yes you do. if you insist that the Genesis account can only be read literally then you're reduced to twisting 'science' to fit in with a young earth, which is what you do.

Why do atheists so love to make up ideas for their opponents and argue against those?

They don't in general. Why do you love to make irrelevant and unsupported assertions? :idunno:

:rotfl: Oh, I remember this lot! None of you has the first clue about science or the scientific process past what you can Google or what you can copy from posters that post before you.

:darwinsm:

:mock: ... er .. 'something'. :chuckle:

:rotfl:

This is hysterical, even coming from you Stripe. Alate One is Assistant Professor Of Biology and Botany!! You think she 'googled' her way to that position?

What are your credentials dude? Aren't you an English teacher? Please do share what makes you such an expert on biological science where you can justifiably dismiss a professor of such as 'not knowing what she's talking about'.

The 'something' is the amount of times Alate One has handed you your head on a subject in which she's an expert and where you most assuredly aren't. She deserves an award for patience in the 'Bob Enyart Live' sub forum alone...

Why do atheists so love to make up ideas for their opponents and argue against those?

Why do you repeat the same tired drivel? :idunno:

And why would you respond to the question:

How is God making living things according to their kind and to reproduce according to their kind not scientific?​

with:

It's not got enough details​

?

I said 'it doesn't go into any details' Stripe, which it doesn't.

Are you an atheist?

Nope but you'll doubtless wrangle something about how 'atheists do such and such' in any reply you give anyway...:yawn:

Allegories are written to convey meaning based upon well known and well understood concepts. What is "Six days" based upon? What does it mean if it does not mean "Six days"? Why should we take a passage written as a historical account, written at the very front of a book as an introduction to everything, backed up by every other scriptural reference to the account and take its central premise (that God created the universe and all in it in six days) to be an allegory?

Why should we do that?

The same way that many believe the Adam and Eve account to be allegory with a tree of life and a talking snake Stripe. If there's an all powerful God then He could bring about the universe instantaneously don't you think? You suppose God literally took 24 hours each time or that our understanding of a day and the frame of reference attached applies to God? Many of the founders saw the allegory present and understood it as something that is wrote in simple language, so it could fit people's understanding at that time:

http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis/

There is only one rational answer. The only rational answer is so that you can claim man's understanding does not contradict the word of God.

An allegorical interpetation doesn't contradict the word despite your insistences otherwise.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

Alate One is Assistant Professor Of Biology and Botany!! You think she 'googled' her way to that position?

Oh, right. I didn't see her in there.

What are your credentials dude?

I have a degree in Earth Science.

The same way that many believe the Adam and Eve account to be allegory with a tree of life and a talking snake Stripe. If there's an all powerful God then He could bring about the universe instantaneously don't you think? You suppose God literally took 24 hours each time or that our understanding of a day and the frame of reference attached applies to God? Many of the founders saw the allegory present and understood it as something that is wrote in simple language, so it could fit people's understanding at that time:An allegorical interpetation doesn't contradict the word despite your insistences otherwise.

I never insisted allegory contradicted anything and I see you have completely mis-read my question. No matter, here it is again:

Allegories are written to convey meaning based upon well known and well understood concepts. What is "Six days" based upon? What does it mean if it does not mean "Six days"? Why should we take a passage written as a historical account, written at the very front of a book as an introduction to everything, backed up by every other scriptural reference to the account and take its central premise (that God created the universe and all in it in six days) to be an allegory?

Why should we do that?

 

[Lovejoy]

I think that God does exist in all of the dimensions. He is, after all, near to us. But as to what a multiple dimensional being would actually look like if viewed from any other dimension, I don't think we can even begin to conceive of such a thing. That is why God could appear as a burning bush or a pillar of smoke or a column of fire.

Sorry this took so long, I was out of town, and only posting silly stuff. If I understant correctly, the real issue that was taken was with the idea that God was any kind of physically extended being. The assumption is that God must be 'other' (or immaterial Spirit) to be able to be causally prior to the big bang. If He was merely immanent, He could not have set off the Big Bang (and you would have all the problems of a mormon God), and one would have to surmise that He was actually living in the singularity prior to it. To imply that He lives merely in higher dimensions implies that He lives in these dimension which implies that He is in some way a part of these dimensions. I believe He created them all, I believe that He transcends them. I know that He is reported to be omnipresent, but I still take that to be that He is present in a causal fashion at every point in space, not that He is some kind of divine gas spread thin throughout the cosmos (even in eleven dimensions).

That said, I am open to all sorts of different possibilities. I just need them to arrive at a coherent cosmology. Can you make this coherent, so that I can use it apologetically?

 

[mighty_duck]

MD wrote:
The only thing we know of that was acting in that time were chemical interactions - which makes them the most likely culprit in the formation of life.

You made an assumption without even stopping to consider it. Or you may have considered it. At any rate, you assume that there is no possibility of a Designer and conclude that chemical process must account for all that we see.

I didn't say that. I noted the only player that we are reasonably certain was acting at the time. There doesn't rule out the possibility of a designer, but we have no evidence of such.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh, right. I didn't see her in there.

Best brush up on those observational skills then eh? Not that it justifies your accusations towards the others mentioned, or your patronizing asides to A1 but still...at least no atheist 'patterns' were mentioned for a change....

I have a degree in Earth Science.

Then for completing a degree I applaud you sir. :up: For constant attempts at undermining a professors knowledge of biology I don't. She's an expert and you aren't, which shows.

I never insisted allegory contradicted anything and I see you have completely mis-read my question. No matter, here it is again:

Well, yes you are if you insist that an allegorical reading of Genesis contradicts the word of God, so my former answer stands in that regard and your question was fully understood and answered to start with. It's you who have failed to supply an answer so either do or don't as I'm not inclined to repeat myself. I guess all those early founders who saw such as allegory were just a bunch of pompous intellectuals or something?

:e4e:

 

[chair]

I have a degree in Earth Science.

From what college?

 

[Stripe]

From what college?

The one in New Zealand most renowned for Earth Science.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

God is alive, so I'll have to say life has always existed.

 

[Stripe]

God is alive, so I'll have to say life has always existed.

:think: Good point, Jack.

 

[fool]

:think: Good point, Jack.

Jack is a good maker of points.