Bottom line: can God create a universe that can produce life?

Certainly God can do that. It just is that He told us that He did it a different way.

Although....in a sense.... it was abiogenesis, wasn't it? The land produced the vegetation and man himself was formed out of the dust of the ground....:godisgood:

But the development from one cell to all the varied life forms we have today is in direct contradiction to His Word.

About the other two threads -- I'm exhausted from a ten-year-old's overnight party here last night and am only sitting at the computer for short breaks during clean up. I will get back...

 

Is God able to create a universe that is able to produce life?

Of course.

He has already created THE universe and He has already created life. The universe didn't create it. He created it. God could have, but didn't use an intermediary "spark". The dust didn't determine that one day it would create a man. God determined that he would create man using dust. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the ingredients of dust in this context. Dust didn't wake up and say "Man, BE!" God, who always is, spoke life into dust.

:wavey:

 

#1. Bottom line - IS the Bible the word of God -- or not??

#2. If so -- then DID God say "I created matter long ago and given time IT then SELF ORGANIZED into living systems"?? (please read your Bibles carefully and answer honestly).

OR DID God say "on DAY ONE I SPOKE and then THIS happened.. and in a single evening and morning we had DAY ONE... then on DAY TWO I SPOKE again and divided the dry land on EARTH from the water... and in a single evening and morning we had DAY TWO..."..

#3. Can you easily SEE that one method fits atheism JUST AS PERFECTLY as atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christians like D. James Kennedy SAY it does... and that God's account does NOT FIT atheism at all - just like Atheists say it DOES NOT!

#4. Can you see the DANGER in bending and twisting the bible to FIT an atheist agenda??

Do you SEE how that destroys not only the integrity of God's Word but also the VERY GOSPEL you claim to be the good news of your salvation??

These are the questions to be addressed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am finding it interesting just how much faith scientists have in water. They seem convinced that they have found it on Mars and that if it is there then there will almost certainly be life. I think I read that they have not found life there yet and that they have rather found it to be quite sterile. Is this true? And do you think that life is unique to the planet Earth in our solar system?

 

That reminds me of the man who built an airplane in his bedroom.

 

Let me see if I can offer insight here as to why scientists go gaga over liguid water outside of earth and I'll tie it back into the discussions going on.

Now you will often see it asserted here that abiogenesis is either impossible or highly unlikely.

In contrast, from what they have learned in the last several decades, most scientists think that given liquid water and a few raw ingredients, that life is almost inevitable. There are a variety of reasons for this. Organic molecules being found in deep space and in meteorites. Finding that common materials like some clays can catalyze the formation of optically pure organic chains like RNA. The finding that RNA can act as an enzyme all by itself such that you could have had an RNA world where RNA was both the information carrying ,olecule and the enzymes that drove life. And so on and so forth.

To those in the know, these things they have studied and that others in their field have studied is so convincing that they almost expect to find life wherever they find liquid water.

Now other things come into play. For instance on Mars, the surface environment may have too much radiation to allow life even given other conditions.

But contrast the view of those in the know who think that life is so easy to get started that they gush over every chance of liquid water with those that come here and try and tell you how hard it is without ever having been involved in work that would allow them to make such a judgement.

 

The bible has your answers, in it God tells us how He created life. Why do christians have such a hard timeing believing what God says?

 

Because of just that. Unbelief. A failure to trust in the actual words that are written in the Bible. We believe in Christ and all his sayings. But obviously there are some of his sayings that we do not believe in? He believed in the Jewish scriptures. Why then don't we who call ourselves Christian believers?

Personally I cannot see the problem. But others obviously feel that we as Christians should forsake that which even our Lord believed, and talk like the atheist scientists, so that we should have more credibility with the unbelieving world? :jesus:

 

As the atheist darwinist Richard Dawkins points out - the distinctives in atheist darwinism are opposed to what is printed in Gen 1-2:3 "obviously" and Christians like D. J Kennedy and others fully agree that atheist views of origins just CAN not be shoe-horned into the Gen 1-3 text without doing serious damage to the integrity of scripture AND to the Gospel itself!

Sadly there are compromised Christian devotees to the system of atheist darwinism that simply "turn a blind eye" to these inconvenient facts as they claim that BOTH the atheist and the Bible believing Christians are wrong about what they say is the problem with injecting atheist concepts into Gen 1-3. They claim "well you can slice the bible up into believable vs unbelievable sections and it does no harm to Christianity".

How sad.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ok - time for the fact vs fiction exercise with UTEOTW's rabbit trailing.

"Finding molecules" - yes.

Finding Carbon based molecules - yes.

FINDING that in the lab water and a few raw incredients almost always can be combined to form living creatures?? Dead wrong!

In fact that is NEVER the case in the lab. IT can not even be FORCED to happen let alone "almost inevitably (always) happens by itself".

How sad that this drivel gets dished out as "the reason for ignoring the Word of God" in Gen 1-3!

How sad that such shallow story-telling is EVER accepted by ANY Christian as the fools-gold that is worth trading in the Gospel and the Word of God itself.

The fact that a molecule like non-functioning RNA can be formed is a given. The fact that NOTHING reads what is formed NOTHING translates it into Eukaryote cell structures once a molecule of RNA of any stripe is formed in the lab -- stands out as a glaring blue "fact" that is simply to be "glossed over" by our modern day alchemist chasing after their fools gold.

Contrast that bit of propaganda with the FACT that NO scientist no matter how brilliantly atheist - has been able to ARTIFICIALLY get a single living eukaryote from the "water plust a few materials" propaganda stated by UTEOTW above. And now we are to swallow the lie that something that is so far IMPOSSIBLE should not be thought of by the objective thinking mind as "hard to do"????

I can't believe these stories work on ANYONE -- even UTEOTW himself!

In Christ,

Bob

 

You should not be so obvious as that when you say t=something that you know is false.

You see, you carefullt snipped my previous statement about RNA chains that can act as catalysts because it would stand in contrast to this misrepresentations of your.

You know, for I have told you many times and sent gave you many references to support my claims, that your statement is false and is astrawman.

RNA strands can do the same sort of complex folding as proteins and can form the same kinds of tasks as protein enzymes. In the lab, we have seen where completely random strands of RNA can do useful things in this role. And we see in extant life where RNA still peforms this function in some roles in some organisms.

So it is not necessary at all to have needed a structure to translate the RNA if life went through an RNA stage.

You should not be so obvious with your snipping next time. But I understand your dilemma. You know that I have pointed these things out in the past, so you know that the assertion you wanted to make was both false and a fallacy. So you could not leave my RNA statement in there because someone might notice.

On the other hand, if you take it out, it shows that you are hoping that no one notices that you statment is already addressed.

Would it not be much easier for you to come to the side of truth? You have to get into the mud to try and defend YEism.

 

AMEN!
:thumbs:

 

In the lab,

RNA cannot be formed from nothing.

RNA molecules can be forced to do things under very controlled circumstances.

Scientists have not made life - yet . . .

:wavey:

 

I don't doubt that a molecule can be useful - EVEN if it is a molecule of RNA. Your penchant for hyper-inflating the modest lab experiments of atheist darwinists and "a molecule of RNA" AS IF they had actually shown ABIOGENESIS to take place is "nothing" if not glaringly obvious.

I have to admit UTEOTW it is fun to watch you over-state, inflate, and generalize the modest role of A FORMED strand of RNA (as in FORMED in the lab via the atheist darwinist experiments ALSO cited here) - but still what we do not find - is THOSE "formed RNA molecules" functioning INSIDE Eukaryote cells. What we DON't find is Eukaryotes using the fabrications instead of Proteins and enzymes. What we DON't find is the MECHANISM to actually produce an abiogenesis result IN the Lab even ARTIFICIALLY!

We DO find you generalizing and overstating - we do NOT find abiogenesis being demonstrated in the lab, fabricated in the lab or SHOWN to have happened at any point in all of time!!

Outside of the imanginative thought experiments of atheist darwinists - all we have from their LAB is a set of interesting tests on a molecule of RNA. Period. That is far from creating a living thing!

The real question for the thinking, objective, reasoning mind is WHY would anyone want to trade in the Gospel and the fact of God's Word telling us about God CREATING LIFE -- ALL life on this world in 7 "evenings and mornings" -- for the fools-gold of UTEOTW who over-states, hyper-inflates and generalizes the antics of atheist darwinists???

AT a MINIUMUM - UTEOTW should be an I.D evolutionists JUST to make the claim that he is a CHRISTIAN Evolutionist. But failing to master that modest achievement in reason and logic -- one is immediately impressed with UTEOTW's blinders-on avoidance of the self-contradicting stance he takes in this extreme defense of the atheist distinctives in Darwinism -- on this very point!!

Abiogenesis and the denial of I.D is the very core - the heartbeat of atheism when it comes to darwinism. UTEOTW falls on his sword for all to see - time after time on this one - even though ALL he has is FAILURE in the Lab to spin and inflate as IF they had SHOWN viable abiogenesis results!!

UTEOTW you dress up the failure to SHOW abiogenesis to be viable in the lab - by adding the same desperate faith to it that any athiest darwinist would ever do -- and this is what you hold up as your standard against the Word of God - against the claims that God is the creator of all life... against the Romans 1 claim of Intelligent Design??

As the well-known atheist darwinist Richard Dawkins observes - your position is self-defeating because you are marching to the atheist drummer EVEN in thise most extreme reaches - while claiming to still be a Christian.

I like the focus on this ONE launching point for the Atheist Darwinist "stories" because HERE we have the atheist component of Darwinism MOST exposed for all to see! Amino acids CAN Not "evolve" and so the Atheist has no way to argue "given enough time amino acids chemically ASSEMBLE or EVOLVE into viable cell structures". There is NO "magic time element here" -- the Lab is fully capable of manipulating the SAME AMINO ACID chemicals today as are being "supposed" in the Atheist stories to have existed billions of years ago. The very same Carbon atoms the very same chemicals STILL available to us today! No "evolutionary mutations needed" JUST chemistry! No "natural selection" just chemistry and all the freedom in the world to FORCE the reaction that you want.

There is "no rock for them to hide behind" on this one claiming that some intermediate form helped the Elephant go back into the sea and become a whale if only we could just see that link --.. No such "missing link" can be inserted into this argument about PURE-CHEMESTRY ALONE!! ALL the materials are in the lab - if it is supposed to happen "all by itself" - then failure to FORCE it to happen artificially is a giagantic GONG going off every day shouting out ATHEISM IS FALSE! On this point if at no other time the Christian lost and floundering in the sea of atheism should be able to shake off the chainst of darkness - stand upright and say "hey wait a minute - something is not right here"!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

No, the real question is, Can Jesus create a burrito so hot that He couldn't eat it?

 

#1. Bottom line - IS the Bible the word of God -- or not??

#2. If so -- then DID God say "I created matter long ago and given time IT then SELF ORGANIZED into living systems"?? (please read your Bibles carefully and answer honestly).

OR DID God say "on DAY ONE I SPOKE and then THIS happened.. and in a single evening and morning we had DAY ONE... then on DAY TWO I SPOKE again and divided the dry land on EARTH from the water... and in a single evening and morning we had DAY TWO..."..

#3. Can you easily SEE that one method fits atheism JUST AS PERFECTLY as atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christians like D. James Kennedy SAY it does... and that God's account does NOT FIT atheism at all - just like Atheists say it DOES NOT!

#4. Can you see the DANGER in bending and twisting the bible to FIT an atheist agenda??

Do you SEE how that destroys not only the integrity of God's Word but also the VERY GOSPEL you claim to be the good news of your salvation??

These are the questions to be addressed.

In Christ,

Bob