abiogenesis or special creation?

Well, if we insist on the Genesis accounts as historical, we have to choose which one, we have to reconcile light existing before the sun and moon, we have to explain how water was above the sky then but was not when space exploration began, we have to explain how there were women for Cain and Abel to marry, and so on.

One can trust that God is the Creator of all tings, seen and unseen, without having to make a theological/literary text jump through historical and scientific hoops.

 

There is another problem with the atheist abiogenesis story telling. As it turns out - not only do we not "see it happening" today - but we can not artificially MAKE it happen in the lab.

It is one thing to say "I do not see metalic ore today forming itsef into a chain-saw". But it is another thing to say "yes - AND not only that but given enough lab equipment we STILL can not turn those raw materials into a chain saw no matter how we manipulate and manufacture our results".

So while a "story" about Ore self-organizing into a handy dandy chain-saw is facinating and stupid - it DOES have the advantage that we CAN make it happen in the lab without the "self organization" bit.

We CAN't do that with abiotic material trying to MAKE it turn into valid organic material fit for living Eukaryote cells. So what we have is "debunked story telling" for the true devotee to atheist darwinism to believe in -- vs our Creator's Word in Gen 1-3.

The good news in Gen 1 and 2 is that Gen 1-2:3 is a "chronological SEQUENCE" and Gen 2:5-end is NOT.

Obviously - that means we are free to insert the ADDED DETAILS of Gen 2 into the one and only chronological sequence that God has given for Creation.

Pretty easy - but some people are try to avoid "the details".

In Christ,

Bob

 

The black hole at the center of the Milky Way is about 3 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less massive than the brightest quasars we can observe when we look out the furtherest in space. You have oftened suggested that such a quasar could have been as bright as the sun. Even the brightest known quasar, if placed at the center of the galaxy, would be far, far less brilliant than the sun here on earth. Not only would such a quasar be insufficient, but our black hole has no where near the necessary mass. The Eddington limit puts an upper limit on the brightness of a quasar powered by a given mass balck hole. Observation and physics say your assertion is not possible.

 

Hence the notion of "dark matter"

 

Now back to the story-telling myth - abiogenesis vs the Word of God in Gen 1-2:4 in His "account" of what He did.

There is huge problem with the atheist abiogenesis story telling. As it turns out - not only do we not "see it happening" today - but we can not artificially MAKE it happen in the lab.

It is one thing to say "I do not see metalic ore today forming itsef into a chain-saw". But it is another thing to say "yes - AND not only that but given enough lab equipment we STILL can not turn those raw materials into a chain-saw no matter how we manipulate and manufacture our results".

So while a "story" about Ore self-organizing into a handy dandy chain-saw is facinating and stupid - it DOES have the advantage that we CAN make it happen in the lab without the "self organization" bit.

We CAN't do that with abiotic material trying to MAKE it turn into valid organic material fit for living Eukaryote cells. So what we have is "debunked story telling" for the true devotee to atheist darwinism to believe in -- vs our Creator's Word in Gen 1-3.

The good news in Gen 1 and 2 is that Gen 1-2:3 is a "chronological SEQUENCE" and Gen 2:5-end is NOT.

Obviously - that means we are free to insert the ADDED DETAILS of Gen 2 into the one and only chronological sequence that God has given for Creation.

Pretty easy - but some people are try to avoid "the details".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I don't believe that these matters are worthy of discussion, but let me say, before I exit, what Helen said:

That's the bottom line.

 

Questions that ARE worth asking.

#1. IS the Word of God true or false? Trustworthy or fairytale?

#2. SHOULD you know how to READ the Bible without having an atheist darwinist tell you 'what it means'???

#3. DO you EVER want to TIE the objective methods of exegesis to 'the current populare views in atheist darwinism' (for example imagine if Christians in the dark ages had done this to the Bible trying to make it fit with the alchemists of THEIR day the way some modern Christians trade in scripture for the current alchemists that we call "atheist darwinists").

#4. IF the Bible is true - THEN is Romans 1 ALSO true where Paul tells us that the "Invisible attributes of God ARE CLEARLY SEEN" even by pagans "IN THE THINGS that have been MADE"?

This is very important because there are some on this very board who will argue "IF God claims to have done it - then we should not expect what He has done to show up as actual FACT - clearly SEEN even by pagans".

#5. (And this part is keyl) Do you know the difference between "junk-science thought experiments" when it comes to the story-telling of abiogenesis - and actual science? IF NOT then you have no business TRADING IN your Bible for an atheist-darwinist "story" - BENDING scripture in favor of a blind faith statement about origins that only has one purpose, one valuable contribution - and that is that "it is a story about origins that WILL FIT in nicely with atheism!"

#6. When you insert atheist darwinism as your "Story for origins" INSTEAD of the Word of God -- do you know what that does to the Gospel? Have you thought it through???

These are the questions that compromised views held by UTEOTW and others will seek to avoid at all costs. They will urge that YOU not think about these issues at all as you swallow the fables and failed doctrines of atheist darwinism. To be drawn into a Eukaryote discussion or a discussion on entropy or a discussion on the failure of atheist darwinists to solve the mono-chiral orientation needed for the amino acid chains in abiogenesis etc - is not necessary to address most of these questions. Certainly it matters not how "Distant" other Galaxies are to these key central questions. But to avoid asking yourself the central questions listed here - is to miss the boat entirely.

But as it turns out - some questions ARE worth asking and worth answering!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I don't even unstand what you are getting at.

Are you seriously suggesting that our black hole has lost a couple of BILLION solar masses recently? How would that happen, might I ask? Hawking radiation at some fanatastic scale by some unknowable means?

I think most people who know what a quasar is know that they can outshine their host. But still, the brightest quasars, those which are ORDERS of MAGNITUDE more massive than ours and which are shining at the theoriticl limit for even their great mass, still fall well short of what you assert.

 

PASADENA, CA. - A team of astronomers from the California Institute of Technology announced today that a recently detected cosmic gamma-ray burst was as bright as the rest of the universe, releasing a hundred times more energy than previously theorized.
The team measured the distance to a faint galaxy from which the burst, designated GRB 971214, originated. It is about 12 billion light years from the Earth. (One light-year is approximately 5.9 trillion miles.) Combined with the observed brightness of the burst, this large distance implies an enormous energy release. The team's findings appear in the May 7 (1998) issue of the scientific journal, Nature.

 

Questions that ARE worth asking.

#1. IS the Word of God true or false? Trustworthy or fairytale?

#2. SHOULD you know how to READ the Bible without having an atheist darwinist tell you 'what it means'???

#3. DO you EVER want to TIE the objective methods of exegesis to 'the current populare views in atheist darwinism' (for example imagine if Christians in the dark ages had done this to the Bible trying to make it fit with the alchemists of THEIR day the way some modern Christians trade in scripture for the current alchemists that we call "atheist darwinists").

#4. IF the Bible is true - THEN is Romans 1 ALSO true where Paul tells us that the "Invisible attributes of God ARE CLEARLY SEEN" even by pagans "IN THE THINGS that have been MADE"?

This is very important because there are some on this very board who will argue "IF God claims to have done it - then we should not expect what He has done to show up as actual FACT - clearly SEEN even by pagans".

#5. (And this part is keyl) Do you know the difference between "junk-science thought experiments" when it comes to the story-telling of abiogenesis - and actual science? IF NOT then you have no business TRADING IN your Bible for an atheist-darwinist "story" - BENDING scripture in favor of a blind faith statement about origins that only has one purpose, one valuable contribution - and that is that "it is a story about origins that WILL FIT in nicely with atheism!"

#6. When you insert atheist darwinism as your "Story for origins" INSTEAD of the Word of God -- do you know what that does to the Gospel? Have you thought it through???

These are the questions that compromised views held by UTEOTW and others will seek to avoid at all costs. They will urge that YOU not think about these issues at all as you swallow the fables and failed doctrines of atheist darwinism. To be drawn into a Eukaryote discussion or a discussion on entropy or a discussion on the failure of atheist darwinists to solve the mono-chiral orientation needed for the amino acid chains in abiogenesis etc - is not necessary to address most of these questions. Certainly it matters not how "Distant" other Galaxies are to these key central questions. But to avoid asking yourself the central questions listed here - is to miss the boat entirely.

But as it turns out - some questions ARE worth asking and worth answering!

In Christ,

Bob

 

You are still making no sense at all.

The polar jets eminate from the swirling disk of material OUTSIDE of the black hole. The jets carry no mass of the balck hole itself away AT ALL. Anything within the event horizon would have to move at greater than the speed of light to escape.

Second, Hawking radiation occurs at a rate that is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole. The energy can be calculated by assuming a "temperature" of the black hole and using the formula for a black body radiating into space. The higher the mass, the lower the temperature you use. Even a black hole of a few solar masses has a lower temperature than the back ground of the universe and therefore gains mass from this radiant heat transfer. The larger the black hole, the more quickly it gains mass.

You have no means under the physical laws of this universe for what you say to be true.

(I have Hawking himself, or at least his words, on my desk as I type to get this. Surely Hawking should be trusted when discussing Hawking radiation!)

But I am glad you you to finally admit, sort of, that our black hole is way short on mass to do as you say and that it would have by necessity been more massive to act as you describe. Too bad that you do not have a way to put SAG A* on a diet and make it lose the weight. From billions of solar masses to a few million solar masses.

 

Abiogenesis is the story-telling that is done around atheist darwinist campfires where they engage in imgination contests - thought experiements of just how an atheist scenario for the origin of life would contrast to the one that God has given mankind in Gen 1-2:4.

Now it is interesting that God IS the CReator and WAS there to see what HE REALLY DID in making this World - or Sun, or Moon and all life on this planet.

Whereas the atheist darwinist just have their own stellar starting point "There IS NO GOD" and some Junk-science ideas to spin a few stories. And you have to give them credit for this - given that they have to opposed God Himself AND that none of their thought-experiment scenarios work in the Lab -- they have done a wonderful job of hoodwinking some Christians!

They had almost nothing to work with and still - in a 2Cor 4:4 world - they managed to succeed. I say credit where Credit is due!

NO viable proteins and enzymes to call their own - but STILL they press on!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I know you know this, of course, but I just can't help myself....

Rev. 21:23 "And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb."

The light that shone before the sun and the stars was from God.

I do believe in a literal six day creation, because that is how it is presented in scripture. Having said that, most scholars see parallel lines of thought between day 1,2,3 and 4,5,6 in Genesis 1.

Day one: "Let there be light"....Day four: God created the sun and moon, etc.

Day two: God created the "waters above" and "waters below" as well as the "firmament" or "sky"...Day five: God created creatures to live in the waters and birds to fly in the "sky".

Day three: God created the dry ground and vegatation...Day six : God creates animals that eat the vegatation and live on the dry ground, including mankind.

Chapter one is more poetry than narrative. Chapter 2 explains the creation of mankind in more detail, and becomes more of a narrative.

One thing we should be able to agree upon is that Gen. 1 was not written my Moses as an apologetic for the theory of evolution. More likely, it was written by Moses (under the inspiration of God) as an apologetic against the gods of Egypt which the Hebrew people brought with them out of Egypt.

That doesn't mean it can't be used to refute evolution. But we must be extremely careful not to go beyond what is written.

This is what I fear has happened with some of the theories presented as biblical fact. The young earth theory is one of these. I don't know how old the earth is. The bible does not tell us how old the earth is. To assume the earth is 6000 years old by adding up "generations" is simply not valid.

We don't know if the family trees presented in scripture are complete. My understanding is that oftentimes only the most famous or important members of a family line were mentioned. You see this readily when scripture says so-and so had "other sons and daughters".

So, very likely, we have only partial lists of generations. How long is a generation? Some say 40 years. If you use 40 years, and add up all the generations, particularly in Luke, you still don't get 6000 years. So we round up or down, depending I guess on what theory you are trying to prove.

peace to youraying:

 

Jesus taught that a seed falls to the ground and dies before it is able to sprout. If so, then every plant is a new creation.

 

So, as always, we are back to fringe "science" that has been unable to gain acceptance among their peers. And even then, you extrapolate the ideas from the fringe much further than even they do. Please let me know when more than a few folks start accepting these radical interpretations. They do not seem to have convinced anyone yet but you are still comfortable taking the scientifically unaccepted ideas and wildly extrapolating.

Even the offerred answers are inconsistent. Yesterday it was the polar jets somehow removed material from within the event horizon even though this is impossible without exceeding the speed of light and that Hawking radiation could remove mass from black holes too massive for Hawking radiation to work. Today that is completely abandoned and a completely new explanation, the quasars work much differently than science says, is offerred.