• It seems that the email issues are fixed, we need to set some options back in place but this is not important. You should be getting emails again when some one responds to a thread you are subscribed at.

Crevo Query

AronRa

Administrator
I recently received the following email:

Aron, I have watched a few of your youtube videos and maybe you could answer a few questions that I have had. I'm kinda stuck between creationism and evolution. I see contradictions within both.
While creationism contradicts all of science, and even contradicts itself, there are no contradictions in evolutionary theory whatsoever. I challenge you to produce one. You can't.

If you could please take a few moments out of your busy schedule and answer a couple of questions, I would really appreciate it.
I’ll be happy to. I’m writing this reply from the passenger seat of my wife’s electric car as we return to Dallas from a weekend road trip to Phoenix Arizona, and I'm referencing Wikipedia from my phone, lacking a proper internet connection until we get to El Paso.

I'll break this down into three sections in what I like to call biological evolution, geological evolution and cosmological evolution (probably not the right scientific terms but i'll use these to get my point across)
You’re right that they're not the right scientific terms, because you're conflating abiogenesis, geology and cosmology with evolution. Unless otherwise specified, when scientists speak of evolution, they’re only talking about a theory of biodiversity via population mechanics, summarily defined as “descent with inherent modification” or “changes in allele frequencies in reproductive populations over many generations”. Thus, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, the universe and everything. It is only talking about how already living organisms diversify into many different species. Since almost none of your questions to me have anything to do with evolution, we should talk about that after I’m done with these.

Biological evolution
You’re not talking about evolution here, but abiogenesis, which is an entirely different collection of unrelated processes in different chemical environments.

1). How did a single cell first spontaneously arise? It is said by biochemists that a single cell cannot evolve, rather it has to be complete from get go. Also, a single cell is more complex than a modern space shuttle.
First off, efficient simplicity could be an indicator of intelligent design, not the unnecessarily absurd complexity of biochemistry. That is indicative of a haphazard incidental configuration.

Second, it is said by biochemists that biochemists don’t say what you say they do. While it is true that a single cell cannot evolve, because evolution only applies to populations, rather than individuals, it is not true that we have to start with a complete cell. Instead, biochemists have always said that we have to start with constituent components. That’s what the Miller-Urey experiments were all about. Theirs and a number of other, similar experiments showed that water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen generate amino acids when heated and charged with electricity. The same thing happens when you change the mix to include Carbon-dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen-sulfide and sulfur-dioxide. Similarly, heating water to 70ºC in the presence of iron hydroxide (simulating geothermal vents in the anaerobic conditions of the prebiotic earth) also produced amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids in the lab. A separate study showed that redox and pH gradients drive amino acid synthesis in iron oxyhydroxide mineral systems. This is how we get from inorganic to organic chemistry.

2). How did the first life form with these amino acids etc. in a non-oxygen atmosphere? If there is no oxygen, there is no ozone layer and anything living would be immediately killed and or not form.
Water protects against UV radiation much better than the relatively transparent ozone layer. Some stages of the abiogenesis sequence may have benefited from higher radiation. What we know of the early earth is that it was much warmer and more radioactive than it is today, a bubbling cauldron cooking complex chemicals.

3). How did the first biological chemicals form in water? Water breaks down amino acids in all types of water (hot, cold, flowing, still etc). Water is a main enemy for amino acids.
On the contrary, alanine and valine, two of the proteinogenic amino acids thought to be among the most abundant on a prebiotic earth, can polymerize into peptides even in an aqueous environment. Further studies show it is remarkably easy for peptides to subsequently assemble into ordered protein-like, two-dimensional structures – amyloids – from basic building blocks. This discovery supports the researchers’ hypothesis that primal life could have evolved from amyloids such as these, and all of this, and every other stage of abiogenesis, happens in water.

4). How do we get past the law of biogenesis, in the fact that this law clearly states that life can never come from non-living material?
There were two completely different and unrelated ideas that were both proposed as the “law of “biogenesis” by different scientists in the 19th century, one evolutionary, one not. Natural laws are determined by people. People can be wrong, and both of these laws turned out to be wrong. The one you’re talking about was proposed by Rudolf Virchow, who correctly noted that life comes from life and that cells come from cells. The word “only” was not included either time. Virchow also correctly noted that diseased cells come from diseased cells. Except that here he was forced to concede that there also had to be a first diseased cell that was originally a healthy cell that had somehow become diseased. This also logically implied that there had to be a first cell to qualify as living.

Now we know that the idea of a single first cell is too simplistic. We’re talking about vast collections of quasi-cells, many of which meet some but not all of the qualifications required to be considered alive. For example, studies show that peptides can spontaneously form self-replicating protein structures in the presence of carbonyl sulphide. They can also dry into polypeptides, because some of these chemicals become increasingly complex after repeated cycles of inundation, dehydration and irradiation. Then once the right phosphate is involved, they become ribonucleotides. If ribonucleotides come into contact with montmorillonite, they spontaneously produce strands of RNA. Activated RNA can not only replicate itself even without the usual enzyme, it also builds DNA. Biochemists also now know of a ribozyme that can use either left or right handed RNA templates to exclusively synthesize right-handed versions, solving the problem of homochirality. Then of course phospholipids automatically form a bilayered cell-wall upon contact with water, due to their combined polarity; allowing a haven for all these processes, with transport vesicles and other semi-permeable channels to keep fueling and exchanging the system. So if RNA and then DNA are contained within that incidental arrangement, then we have the basis of the first living cells.

5). Where does biological information come from and how or what continues to add this complex information every generation?
This is the only question you’ve asked that had anything to do with evolution. Here is the textbook answer:

"Two processes are responsible for genetic variation, recombination and mutation. Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic change; new alleles arise in all organisms, some spontaneously, others as a result of exposure to mutagenic agents in the environment. These new alleles become the raw material for a second level of variation, effected by mutation."
Modern Genetic Analysis 1999
Griffiths AJF, Gelbart WM, Miller JH, et al.


Cosmological evolution
What you’re referring to here is a collection of different scientific theories, including big bang cosmology and accretion theory. Neither of which have anything to do with biology, to which evolution is confined. And both of these cosmic theories were proposed by scientists who had either rejected evolution or had never even heard of it.

1). If or when the big bang occured, it sent everything out from this singularity (gases, clouds etc). They teach that these gases collapse and form solids (planets, stars, galaxies). But we have never observed clouds or gasses ever forming into solids, how can this be?
We actually have observed that innumerable times with many different chemicals, both in space and here on earth.

2). The law of angular momentum states that everything coming from a spinning object will spin in the same direction. Yet we have multiple planets and moons that spin in the opposite direction, but this can't happen under a big bang theory. So, how do we have this occur?
You’re conflating unrelated theories again. The big bang concerns the inflation of the universe implied by cosmic red shift. However, what you’re talking about now is accretion theory, which deals with material in various states coming together due to gravitational attraction. This has nothing to do with the big bang. Understand that accretion theory isn’t just the commonly-observed condensation of gases into liquids and solids and their subsequent coalescence. It also continues with solids colliding into each other, which can tilt or otherwise significantly alter orbits and rotations, depending on which quadrant they hit; especially when we have rogue bodies coming in from other systems.

3). It is stated that 2-3 supernovas happen every century. Now, we have around 200-250 observed supernovas. This equates to around 6-7,000 years worth. Where are all the supernovas? And isn't this a little odd that what we observe just so happens to align with the biblical time frame?
It isn’t odd at all that nothing ever matches anything in the Bible. I don’t know who is feeding you all this nonsense, but it seems that none of your information is correct. The first recorded observation of a supernova was in China 1,836 years ago. That star likely exploded 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, but its light didn’t get here until the year 185 on the Gregorian calendar. The earliest possible recorded supernova, known as HB9, could have been viewed by unknown Indian observers around 4500 years Before the Common calendar. There have been very few supernovae seen since then, except through telescopes, which can detect them even in other galaxies millions of light years away, which means they happened millions of years ago. Remember that the phrase "it is said" can refer to things that were said by idiots and liars. And if you got this from a creationist source, then the author is both.

4). The core rock of earth is granite.
No, it isn’t. It’s made almost entirely of metal, specifically iron and nickel.

Now, evolution teaches us that the earth was a molten rock 4.6 billion years ago and then cooled in the next 1 billion years.
Once again, evolution is a theory of biodiversity, not cosmology, nor geology, nor the origin of biochemistry. However, we also know that there was life on this planet as early as 3.8 billion years ago. So your numbers are still off. Your sources are misleading you.

However, they have found microscopic radio halos in these rocks. Geologists conclude that the earth could never have been molten if there are these halos in them. So why or how is this possible?
What you’re citing now is actually the first creationist claim I ever refuted when I started doing this back around 1997. Though back then, I just copied it from the archive of creationist claims on Talk.Origins. You should check out their Index of Creationist Claims. Therein you'll see that the assertion was that these were supposed to be Polonium haloes, which only have a half-life of 138 days, and this was supposed to imply a recent magical creation. However, polonium haloes form from the alfa decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that polonium haloes are only found associated with uranium, (the parent material for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found among cracks.

Interestingly enough, these halos would be there if the earth was made out of water.
No, they wouldn’t; they couldn’t.

5). Comets are agreed on by everyone that they can't last more than 10,000 years. Yet we see comets. How is this possible?
Again, your sources are misleading you. Comet Hyatuke has an orbital period of 70,000 years. Comet C/2006 P1 has an orbital period of 92,000 years, and Comet West has an orbital period of 250,000 years. So there was never any agreement that comets could only be 10,000 years old. Importantly though, the comets we have today haven't always been comets since the beginning of time. They only became comets relatively recently, as president Morgan Freeman explains at 1:41 of this clip from Deep Impact.

I know that the belief is that there is this cloud beyond Pluto and it regenerates new comets, so replenishes them. However, isn't this just based on circle reasoning? Because this has never been observed and honestly the evidence doesn't support this idea.
This is not circular reasoning because it isn't just a "belief" in the sense that your religious position is make-believe. The Oort cloud is a theoretical field of not-yet conglomerated material. In what sense did you imagine this to be circular reasoning? Especially considering that Oumuamua, which came through our system at 196,000 miles an hour four years ago was determined to be an interstellar object.

6. How come Saturn and Jupiter still have their rings? These rings would have disappeared eons ago. I know they teach that these rings are replenished (sort of like the Oort cloud) but nothing is really there that indicates this, kind of feels like circle reasoning again.
Where do you imagine circular reasoning here? Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune all have rings in various states of decay. And if one of their moons is destroyed, either by another moon or by an impacting asteroid, that would generate a new ring.

Also, we shouldn't see the spirals of galaxies if they are billions of years old.
Yes, we absolutely would. Remember that it takes hundreds of millions of years for our galaxy to rotate just once. So even if galaxies were hundreds of billions of years old, we would still see them spiral into each other, just as this animation shows, with references to known galaxies in various states of collision over the last several billion years.

Geological evolution
Again, while the English word "evolution" simply means any "change over time", the Theory of evolution only pertains to biodiversity via population genetics, which I'll be happy to prove to your satisfaction, once we're done with your questions.

1). Uniformitarianism is the biggest teaching in science there is. As we know, this teaches that everything has always remained constant. The sediments are taught to have taken around 700 million years (geological column) to form. If this is true, why do we not see much erosion? Why do we not see any soil in between the layers?
Uniformitarianism means that we don't make the unwarranted assumption that the laws of physics had changed and were somehow different in the past. Instead we must consider that the laws of physics that apply now applied the same way in the past also. In which case, we know that certain sediments really do take hundreds of millions of years to accumulate to these levels, and we also see a WHOLE LOT of erosion, where you somehow thought we see none. Again, your sources are lying to you. As to your comment about soil between layers, if you deposited soil in the 1980s and continued to do so in the 1990s, would you expect to see any between those decades? If you shoveled all weekend, would you expect to find soil between the layers from Saturday and Sunday?

2). There are bent rock layers in sediments all around the world. How do you bend these rocks without fractoring them?
As with metallurgy, a gradual application of pressure can bend things slowly that would have broken if you tried to do it too fast.

The only way this makes sense is if they were formed when it was still "mud" and still pliable.
Except that most of this was never "mud". So the only way this makes sense is under great pressure over a very long period of time.

If this just somehow happened over millions of years, wouldn't these bends have fractured?
No. Cracks usually only happen with relatively sudden tectonic movement, earthquakes.

If you were to take a cinder block and theoretically able to try to bend it, it would break, correct?
Not if I applied a combination of heat and pressure continuously over many years.

However, when it is still soft and pliable, you can form it.
Apart from igneous (volcanic) magma, when is rock ever soft and pliable?

Not seeing how this could occur over the millions of years ideology.
Deep time is not an ideology. It is a verifiable fact that was confirmed by several Christian scientists citing several different means hundreds of years ago, even before we had several different methods of radiometric dating to confirm it all over again.

3). Polystrate fossils- How in the world are their polystrate tree fossils vertical in the rock layers. Many go through one layer up through the next. How can this be if these layers are separated by millions of years? Hell, some of these trees are upside down. Same thing goes with many animal fossils, they extend through many layers vertically.
Again, if you look at the Index of Creationist Claims, you'll see that "Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades." There is a more detailed explanation of Polystrate Tree Fossils, if you really care to understand this in more depth.

4). Submarine canyons- There are a few of these submarine canyons around the world. A couple of them are larger than the Grand Canyon. These submarine canyons are located on the ocean floor. One in particular could stretch all the way across the United States. How were these formed? You can't use the belief of uniformitarianism on this because the water flow is less than 1mph and in most cases, the water is flowing in the wrong direction.
Once again, uniformitarianism is not a "belief". Secondly, no one assumes that underwater canyons would be formed by the same type of disparate erosion seen above sea level. Instead of reading creationist websites, which are always deliberately deceptive misinformation, you should look at secular science sources for the formation of underwater canyons. Even if you only went to Wikipedia, you would see that

I could ask several more, but I do not want to overwhelm you with questions. I am just attempting to learn the truth, as this is all I care about. I don't much care if the truth is creationism or evolution, as long as it's the truth. I appreciate your time and I have many other questions in the future that I would like to ask if you have the time.
Every question that comes from a creationist website is another error to be corrected, because they refuse to get anything right. So I suggest you only ask me what you yourself personally want to better understand.

Now, do you understand and accept everything I have explained to you so far?

If so, then if you're up to it, I could prove evolution even to your satisfaction. As a bonus, I will also prove that creationism depends ENTIRELY on frauds, falsehoods and fallacies with no truth in it. What do you say?
 
Last edited:

he_who_is_nobody

Well-Known Member
Yes, we absolutely would. Remember that it takes hundreds of millions of years for our galaxy to rotate just once. So even if galaxies were hundreds of billions of years old, we would still see them spiral into each other, just as this animation shows, with references to known galaxies in various states of collision over the last several billion years.
I actually think the creationist is referring to this.
 

AronRa

Administrator
He replied:

Thank you very much for your time Aron Ra. You did something I wasn't expecting and you went into great detail with each answer. Honestly I'm just looking for the truth. I was raised in a christian family (albeit I was never pressured into anything) and I always tried to follow Christian values. However, here recently I have had a lot of questions and some things just didn't make sense. Few things that bothered me was the fact (and it is close to being a fact) that where you're born and what time period you are born into most often relates to what religious belief you have. For example, if I were born in Iraq, there is more than a 97% chance I would have been in the Islam religion. Of course as you know there are many examples of this. There are thousands of different beliefs in the world and were supposed to know exactly which one is correct? Very young kids starving and dying all around the world who never did anything wrong, this in itself always bothered me. There are many other examples that started to raise some questions.

Your answers truly did mean a lot to me and have brought some much needed clarity. I have plenty of other questions for you that I'm sure you have a pretty good answer for. I'm getting ready for work but I'll shoot you a few here.

1). Dinosaurs are told to have gone extinct some 65+ million years ago. However, we have found multiple proteins, soft tissue and even traces of red blood cells. How in the world can these biomaterials last in nature for tens of millions of years?
Most of these were microscopic traces that were well insulated in thick bone or impermeable deposits, and they had to be demineralized in an acid bath. So they’re not at all how creationist websites pretend that they are. What you refer to “traces of blood” for example is not blood, but a constituent component called heme, which is essentially the iron from the blood. The fossilization process isn’t going to have any effect on iron.

I know they claim "preservation" but my god, there was one triceratops horn found in Montana back in 2012 that was encased in muddy water and in the worst environment you could imagine. Yet, they found proteins, soft tissue that hasn't even "wound up" yet and was pliable.
Since you’re obviously still sourcing creationist websites, then we have no citations to see what the scientists really said in any of these cases, but past experience has shown that it never matches creationist claims. You should understand that much of these type discoveries are attributed to Mary Schweitzer, who was a Young Earth Creationist until she started working in a paleontology lab. Now she knows better. She’s the one who found these traces of soft tissue, and yet she knows they’re not evidence of a young earth, even though she would rather believe that they were.

Also, each time they have found complete fossils, the dinosaurs always have their necks contorted (bent backwards). They claim that this only occurs from death of lack of oxygen (drowning). They are always found all together in the same place (as if they were running to the highest ground during a flood).
Many dinosaurs and other animals have been found in mass graves due to localized floods or tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. I myself found one such boneyard in South Africa last year, where a bunch of skeletons of late Permian fauna were washed up in the bend of what was once a river system.


The Permian was the last period of the Paleozoic era, before the Mesozoic era of the dinosaurs. So there were no dinosaurs to be found in the layer of strata where we were, but there were plenty of therapsids that were mostly already extinct before the dinosaurs showed up. The fact that there really is a geologic column is just one more thing creationists have to ignore and lie about in defense of their mythic “flood geology”. Here is an eight-part series explaining how we know for certain there was never a global flood. The fable of Noah’s Ark never happened as described. At best, it was an exaggeration of older myths from Mesopotamian polytheism.


Lastly, we are told that we didn't know what dinosaurs were until 1829 (first fossil found). However, there are so many ancient drawings, sculptures and artifacts of these dinosaurs dating back to as early as around 2000BC.
No, there isn’t any evidence of that. But there are a lot of hoaxes and deliberately deceptive frauds trying to promote such lies, as I explain in detail here:


This to me is perhaps the biggest problem in evolution (dinosaurs). The evidence is so overwhelming that these creatures were here not too long ago and i understand that this poses a huge problem because this would "mess up" the whole geological column of time. I could be wrong and I'm willing to be wrong and that's why these are simply unanswered questions.
There is no evidence whatsoever that any dinosaurs survived the Cretaceous / Paleogene extinction event; other than birds of course, which have proven to be the last surviving lineage of dinosaurs. Here is a ten-part playlist to explain that.


2). They have found many artifacts deep within the rock layers. One (of many) examples that I know you are probably familiar with is the "London hammer". This ancient hammer was found in sedimentary rock that is supposably 400 million years old. I think we see the problem here. How could this man made hammer be this deep in the rock layers if man hasn't evolved yet for another 399 million years later. There are many other artifacts that have also been found in the rock layers that are hundreds of millions of years before man is supposed to have evolved.
No, what creationists are deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting here is something very different from fossilization. Remember when I referred you to the index of creationist claims that have all been debunked? You can find this one there as well.


3). I am very confused with this "shared DNA" with a modern chimp study. From my understanding, the shared 99% with chimp study came out in the 1970's and they conveniently left out many parts of the genome that didn't match to their liking. The real number is around 80%-85%. However, i keep hearing numbers all over the place and can't seem to find a consistent one.
Let me give you the correct numbers from actual geneticists. This is the next to last episode of a fifty-part series of my primer on taxonomy, and it explains the correct numbers from actual geneticists.


You would do well to watch that whole series by the way.

4). They make a big deal out of the chromosome count. Humans have 46 and chimps have 48. They believe this is strong evidence for evolution. I can understand this but when I did a comparison on the chromosome count, I found out that we are also only 2 chromosomes off from that of tobacco. We were also only 2 chromosomes off from that of a deer mouse. So is this teaching just simply misleading?
Your creationist sources are misleading you, yes. The very first creationist argument I ever heard was some tele-evangelist on the radio back in 1974 who said “A watermelon is 98% water. A cloud is 100% water. So according to evolutionists, a watermelon only missed being a cloud by 2%.” I was only eleven years old when I heard that, and I was stunned at his dishonesty and stupidity. When you read creationist sources, you are reading lies. Because every part of their belief system is a lie that can only be defended by lies. Put another way, everything they believe in falls into one of two categories: It’s either not evidently true or it’s evidently not true. When we start talking about evolution, I will show you things that are evidently true. No creationist can do that. I can show the truth of my position; they can't because there isn't any.

For example, many other organisms will have the same number of chromosomes that we do, but the genomes of each will still be entirely different. The more closely-related two organisms are, the more similar their genetic orthologue.

One of my biology teachers was a Master of Science who had been cited in the journal Nature for her contribution to the human genome project. I also knew she was active in her church, smoothing the division between fact and faith. She told me, “I am a Christian and I can accept that Noah’s Ark was a folk tale told by mouth until it was written down around Moses’ time—it is not a firsthand account! Only literal Bible readers get bogged down trying to prove that the Creation story, Adam and Eve, and Noah’s Ark are absolute fact.”

Here is how she explained comparative genetics:

The evidence of taxonomic relationships is overwhelming when you look at the comparisons between the genomic (DNA) sequences of both closely related and even distantly related species. The DNA of yeast and humans share over 30% homology with regard to gene sequences. Comparison of the human and mouse genome shows that only 1% of the genes in either genome fails to have an orthologue with the other genome. Comparison of nongene sequences, on the other hand, shows a huge amount of divergence. This type of homology can be explained only from descent from a common ancestor. The probability of these things being a coincidence, which I guess would be the argument of creationism and intelligent design, is statistically so small as to be negligible.

5). Last question has to do with Jesus. My stance is, you have 3 options you can choose from. !). Jesus is who he said he was and the whole story is correct. 2). Jesus was real and all the characters were real from the stories but the stories became heavily exaggerated over time. 3). It's all a fairy tale and there was never a Jesus. If we look at these three options, I believe the only one we can possibly eliminate is #3. Why? There simply is too much evidence. There are written historical documents that claimed there was a Jesus. There was the Pontius Pilate stone that was found several years ago which dated to early 1st century and said "Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea'', there was a foot bone with nail still in it found outside of Jerusalem (proving that there was indeed 1st century crucifictions) and even possibly High priest Caiaphas bones found (the usury box). Then one of the most interesting pieces of evidence was that Caesar in the mid-first century made a stone that was a warning to "grave robbers" and it read something along the lines of "stealing a body is punishable by death". Why would a caesar feel the need to make this? Especially only a few years after the resurrection story. Christians use this to "prove" that Jesus was not only real, but also this proves that something happened to his body and they believed it was stolen. So I believe the evidence strongly supports the historical Jesus and other characters. So that leaves us with 1 or 2. This is where I struggle because let's face it, Christiantiy hinges on this alone. In other words, if you prove the resurrection false then that eliminates chrisitanity. I would just like your thoughts on this.
There are problems with each of your options, including the fact that Jesus never said he was who Christians today say he is. Another problem is that there is a fourth option. There were too many Jesuses. Josephas spoke of nineteen of them by name, and alluded to a twentieth, who may be the guy you’re thinking of. We know that the character of Jesus is a composite of several fictional characters, and I suspect, at least a few real ones too, all grossly exaggerated and erroneously conflated. I explain my position on that here:


I wanted to answer your question that you had for me at the end of your last email. Yes I would love for you to prove evolution. I'm up for learning the truth (whatever way that leads me).
In the last exchange, I asked if you understood and accepted everything I’ve shown you so far. If you don’t think something I said is true, tell me and I’ll prove it to you. But I need your answer regarding the previous post, and now this one. Please don’t ignore direct questions.
 

he_who_is_nobody

Well-Known Member
Since you’re obviously still sourcing creationist websites, then we have no citations to see what the scientists really said in any of these cases, but past experience has shown that it never matches creationist claims. You should understand that much of these type discoveries are attributed to Mary Schweitzer, who was a Young Earth Creationist until she started working in a paleontology lab. Now she knows better. She’s the one who found these traces of soft tissue, and yet she knows they’re not evidence of a young earth, even though she would rather believe that they were.
Many dinosaurs and other animals have been found in mass graves due to localized floods or tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. I myself found one such boneyard in South Africa last year, where a bunch of skeletons of late Permian fauna were washed up in the bend of what was once a river system.
The creationist is talking about the opisthotonic poster.
 

AronRa

Administrator
I had hoped that my interlocutor would reply here, but no, it's still only in email.

Thanks Aron, your information that you provide is simply amazing. Im amazed at the fine detail of your explanations. To answer your question(s), so far I believe what you have said and quite honestly I'm a little pissed from being lied to so much in the past. I have watched quite a few of your videos and you have said something a few times and that is your challenge. You quoted something along the lines of you offering to challenge anybody to prove that evolution is a fact and only one went through with that and she married you. I'm always open to the truth, so I do not believe this will be a problem. For me, it's definitely a different way of thinking because I would say most of my life I believed in creation.

As far as any questions go (i always have questions) one thing that I have never understood is back at the origin of species.

* So, 3.8 billion years ago the first cell arose (like a protoplasm or scum so to speak) and everything that ever came about evolved from this? I guess the part of this scenario that i haven't quite figured out is, how did this first cell branch out into all the different types of species? Wouldn't you need hundreds if not thousands of these single cells to come about in different areas/locations and each evolve into something?
Yes, evolution is such a gradual process that there is never a point where a man with a time machine could say "this was the first man, mammal, fish, living cell", because each of those would be surrounded by so many other similar examples. Otherwise, the best way I can think to answer this particular question is with my 50-part series on the Systematic Classification of Life. I think the third episode addresses your question most directly.

* Kind of a weird question but if you recall, the dead sea scrolls were found in 1948. These scrolls dated back to as early as the 2nd century BC. What I always found interesting is that this "proved" Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. How is that? This proved that the prophecies were indeed written way before Jesus was even born and it's been proven that the gospels were written after the time of Jesus. Therefore, doesn't this prove that Jesus indeed fulfilled those prophecies?
Tell me a prophesy that you think Jesus fulfilled.

Thank you for the videos that you sent in your last response, as I will be watching these and eager to learn some truth. But as far as you asking me if I believe everything you have said, so far they all seem to check out just fine but I will continue to investigate all claims obviously. I am most certainly ready to learn all there is to know about evolution.

Thank you Aron for your time as this truly showed me your dedication and honesty
Thank you. Normally, I would start with questions to you. For example, moments ago, some creationist troll on Facebook denied an example of macroevolution on the excuse that it wasn't a "change in kinds". So I replied asking,
What is a "kind"? Does it mean an organism that no longer belongs to all the same higher taxonomic categories as its ancestors did? If so, can you give a single example anywhere in evolutionary history where one "kind" was ever supposed to have turned into a different kind?
Does "kind" mean the same thing as species? Or can you have multiple species evolve within any one "kind"? If so, then can you show me two animal species that are in the same kind as compared with a couple more species representing two other kinds? How can we tell whether any two animals are the same or different kinds?


But you don't need that sort of treatment. in this case, I think my series on the Systematic Classification of Life will probably teach you everything you need to know. Though I will be doing another video soon explaining micro and macro evolution. That will be an important one too. In the meantime, I will happily answer any specific questions you want to start with.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
Kind of a weird question but if you recall, the dead sea scrolls were found in 1948. These scrolls dated back to as early as the 2nd century BC. What I always found interesting is that this "proved" Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. How is that? This proved that the prophecies were indeed written way before Jesus was even born and it's been proven that the gospels were written after the time of Jesus. Therefore, doesn't this prove that Jesus indeed fulfilled those prophecies?

Paul retrofitting decades after the events: no obstacle a little artistic license can't overcome.

Plus what actual 'prophecies' were fulfilled? Christians tend to consider the mere existence of Jesus as the major prophecy fulfilled: the arrival of the 'promised Messiah'. No wonder Life of Brian was banned for offending religious sensibilities as that parodies the living fuck out of flaccid wibble like this, and it must be deeply embarrassing to suddenly be confronted with the abject bunk you've bought into.

Of course, another inescapable fact is that most Christians don't even know what the prophecies are, let alone any of the historical contextual details - instead, they've learned to say 'Jesus fulfilled the prophecies' and unquestioningly accept the dogma.
 

AronRa

Administrator
I wish he would reply here. But oh well.

Thanks again Aron. I will definitely be watching the systematic video that you sent me. I have already watched many of your videos. I do appreciate the time and effort you put into it, you truly go through all the details and that is hard to find in somebody.

You asked me to give you some examples of "fulfilled prophecies" from Jesus. Well, I know that you know most of these (probably all) that have been proposed. I won't reference the verse because we basically all know about the supposed prophecies. But here are just a few.

* In Isaiah it was a prophecy about "He" will be pierced for our transgressions. Pretty consistent with that of Jesus
* Riding into Jerusalem on a donkey
* Roman guards would gamble for his garments
* sold for 30 shekels of silver
* Betrayed by his own people

I mean the list goes on and on of course (argued that it could be near 300 fulfilled prophecies in all). Here is my take (but i would love your answer) I believe there was a historical Jesus. Could these "prophecies" possibly have been forced in? In other words the writers of the gospels (whomever they were) forced in these prophecies to make it look as if Jesus was the awaited messiah. Or did these writers simply go through the old testament and find anything that would connect with how Jesus' life played out?
Have you actually looked at any of these to see what these alleged prophesies are? Not in the opinion of apologists, but what it actually says in the Bible? Most of these aren't prophesies at all, and those that are are prophesying something else entirely. I already addressed this in another video, so let me show that.


I was watching a video of yours yesterday and it was perhaps the most interesting so far. You were talking about basically the whole Bible was story after story that was taken from previous religions (Story of Adam/Eve, creation, flood, exodus and the whole act of Jesus). This made it very easy for me to begin rejecting any and all creation propaganda. I thank you for that. I still am stuck on the flood however, i don't know if its because of indoctrination or if the evidence just led me there, but i'm sure i will eventually come to the knowledge of this. I still look at the flood as holding the evidence. I mean, hypothetically let's say there was a global flood 4,500 years ago. What would we expect to find? Sediments on every continent, billions of dead things buried, fossils of marine life up on continents, fossilized animals found on top of mountains and the smaller slower creatures near the bottom and larger or smarter species near the top. Again, this is just something I am struggling with and I'm not sure if it's truly because of evidence or this was just simply ingrained in me my whole life.

I will watch some more of your flood videos as this tends to help. But as far as my question with this goes is if somebody were to ask you to tell me what your #1 proof that you believe rejects the flood, what would it be? and you can of course only use 1 (strongest argument).
As a student of paleontology, I would say that is the strongest argument against the flood. Not only is there no evidence at all of it, where there would be tons if it was real, but we have plenty of evidence against it. It's not just that it couldn't have happened, it's that even if it was a miracle, we still know for certain that it didn't happen.

Thanks Aron for your time and effort and to let you know, this has opened my eyes more than ever before.
My pleasure.
 

*SD*

Administrator
Staff member
Fair play, says I. Nice when an interlocutor is sincere in their inquiry, shame they won't pop over here for a chat but - to each their own I guess.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
I still look at the flood as holding the evidence. I mean, hypothetically let's say there was a global flood 4,500 years ago. What would we expect to find? Sediments on every continent, billions of dead things buried, fossils of marine life up on continents, fossilized animals found on top of mountains and the smaller slower creatures near the bottom and larger or smarter species near the top. Again, this is just something I am struggling with and I'm not sure if it's truly because of evidence or this was just simply ingrained in me my whole life.

What else would we expect to see aside from abundant evidence that would readily be detected by any competent geologist and would simply be impossible to deny?

Well, a near total extinction of life on Earth. Perhaps some deep sea organisms would have survived, but not a lot else. All land animals would have drowned. Nearly all fresh water and salt water fish would have died due to extensive adaptations resulting in physiological dependencies on the salinity of their relative environments.

Glaring genetic markers showing that every extant living organism had experienced an extraordinarily severe population bottleneck coincidentally at approximately the same time.

Salinization of the soil making the world barren for decades.

Oh, and more than a dozen Atlantic Oceans of additional water just lying around.

Do we need to go on?

The list of eminently observable evidence would be massive and absolutely impossible to simply overlook. For Noah's Flood to have any basis in reality, basically every single individual in the Earth sciences would need to be clueless muppets unable to tell their collective arses from their elbows. Meanwhile, Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists would be patiently queuing up with their reams of questions about how exactly it was all supposed to work and why does this alleged event completely contradict all the physical sciences.

Noah's Flood is a myth. It's a myth for children and our scientifically illiterate ancestors. It's not something anyone credibly informed can lend belief to today.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
* In Isaiah it was a prophecy about "He" will be pierced for our transgressions. Pretty consistent with that of Jesus

The exact same contiguous text includes other descriptions of this person:

Isaiah 52:14 - his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness

Pretty consistent with that of Jesus?

It's pretty obvious if you read it that Isaiah is talking about some other servant, and this was simply retrofitted to apply to Jesus (minus the inconvenient bits, of course).


* Riding into Jerusalem on a donkey

What an amazing sight that must have been. A person... actually riding... on a donkey... into Jerusalem! I bet that wasn't a sight you saw approximately 8 times a minute every single day.

It's a wonder anyone can ride a donkey under such a low bar, though.


* Roman guards would gamble for his garments

Let's quickly imagine what garments he'd have had by then. An itinerant pauper preacher who'd traveled the land, been caught and turned over to Romans where he'd languished in a cell and been tortured. And the Roman guards - professional soldiers receiving regular pay - needed to 'gamble' for a destitute Jew's rags presumably soaked in sweat, shite, and blood?



* sold for 30 shekels of silver

I love this one - it's one I always remember because of how desperate it is.

The actual passage is:

Zechariah 11: 4-13
This is what the Lord my God says: “Shepherd the flock marked for slaughter. Their buyers slaughter them and go unpunished. Those who sell them say, ‘Praise the Lord, I am rich!’ Their own shepherds do not spare them. For I will no longer have pity on the people of the land,” declares the Lord. “I will give everyone into the hands of their neighbors and their king. They will devastate the land, and I will not rescue anyone from their hands.”

So I shepherded the flock marked for slaughter, particularly the oppressed of the flock. Then I took two staffs and called one Favor and the other Union, and I shepherded the flock. 8 In one month I got rid of the three shepherds. The flock detested me, and I grew weary of them and said, “I will not be your shepherd. Let the dying die, and the perishing perish. Let those who are left eat one another’s flesh.”

Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the nations. It was revoked on that day, and so the oppressed of the flock who were watching me knew it was the word of the Lord.

I told them, “If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.” So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.

And the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the Lord.

And that's meant to be a prophecy of Jesus being sold for 30 shekels? :)


* Betrayed by his own people

Well, he wasn't. You could just as easily argue that he betrayed them by fomenting rebellion against Roman rule.

In truth, though, he wasn't 'betrayed' at all - he broke the laws of the land and met a contemporary punishment, and not by 'his own people' - ideologically, he was a politically partisan member of a traditionalist minority which threatened an uneasy relationship with the vastly more powerful Roman state.

I love the idea though that if you get punished for a crime, it's actually you being 'betrayed by your people'.
 
Last edited:

Steelers1981

New Member
I wish he would reply here. But oh well.

Have you actually looked at any of these to see what these alleged prophesies are? Not in the opinion of apologists, but what it actually says in the Bible? Most of these aren't prophesies at all, and those that are are prophesying something else entirely. I already addressed this in another video, so let me show that.


As a student of paleontology, I would say that is the strongest argument against the flood. Not only is there no evidence at all of it, where there would be tons if it was real, but we have plenty of evidence against it. It's not just that it couldn't have happened, it's that even if it was a miracle, we still know for certain that it didn't happen.

My pleasure.
Thanks AronRa. Sorry I wasnt replying here before, i wasnt signed in at those times so it wasnt allowing me to reply directly from this site. However, for now on, I will reply here.

So far you have answered many of my questions fairly satisfactoraly. The last couple days ive been looking and studying up on the historical Jesus. Its amazing how much we take for granted that he even excisted. So, with that said, I have a couple questions pertaining to that topic that maybe you could help with.

1). Christians talk about the matyrment of the disciples as "proof" that they truly saw the risen Christ. In other words, nobody dies for something they know is a lie. This leads me to believe that maybe all or most of the disciples are just fictious charactors perhaps? I dont know, what are your thoughts on the matyrment of the disciples? Because I agree, you will never have 11 men be tortured and killed for something they know is a lie.

2). I may have asked this before but was over looked. There was a Ceasor after the time of Jesus (perhaps 45-60AD) that had a warning sign on a stone tablet that said "Anybody caught stealing a body from a tomb will be put to death". Now, this is intresting. Why would the ceasor fill this to be necessary? Is this just a coincidence? Now, this was a problem during this time period with people being grave robbers but never stole bodies. Why would the ceasor go through the effort to do this? Many Christians will claim that this "proves" that Jesus body was gone and never found (resurection).

3). Ive always had a problem with all the gospels that "didnt make it" into the Bible. As in Gospel of Thomas etc...My question here is why were they not included and more importantly when were these "deleted gospels" written? Most Christians claim that these "deleted gospels" were written a few centuries after the event and were not inspired by the holy spirit. I just think this is kinda wierd to be honest. I think this becomes even more of a problem if these "deleted gospels" were written near the same time as the "accepted gospels".

4). Do you believe there is ANY truth in the "borrowing from other religions" idea for Jesus? Such as Horus or any of the mythacal greek gods? Ive seen many claims that the "dying and rising" Gods existed long before Jesus. I heard claims of just about everything Jesus said and did was actually done by these false deities long before. Such as (I forget which God said this) I am the way, the truth and the life......I am the true vine....and then of course the crucifiction and ressurection. Again, it is "claimed" that just about everything Jesus did was taken from Pagan myths around that time period. Do you think there is anything truth in this?

That's it for now and again I cant tell you how appreciative I am on all your work.

Josh
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
1). Christians talk about the matyrment of the disciples as "proof" that they truly saw the risen Christ. In other words, nobody dies for something they know is a lie. This leads me to believe that maybe all or most of the disciples are just fictious charactors perhaps? I dont know, what are your thoughts on the matyrment of the disciples? Because I agree, you will never have 11 men be tortured and killed for something they know is a lie.

I'm not sure why it would be necessary to speculate about what the disciples believed given that we have very little access to their minds. We can say with a high level of confidence that they were highly devout, probably outright zealous from a modern perspective, and consequently I am not sure that they're credible witnesses in any manner of speaking. Why do we have to consider whether they thought Jesus rising to heaven was a lie? They could have just strongly believed it regardless of what they saw or didn't see. You only need look around at the extreme actions religious believers will engage in today - absent any adequate evidence to justify their beliefs - to show that extremism isn't predicated on rational decision making.

Rather, all we need to acknowledge is that they believed Jesus was a prophet/son of God, and regardless of what they thought about any details, that belief could have induced them to act in a way they considered consistent with that belief. This means that this point really only tells us that the disciples believed X, not that X occurred. It's no more than anecdote.

Further, it's anecdote that was carefully massaged, amended and edited over the years to best fit and to fill in any gaps. Any discussion of the NT necessarily involves looking at Paul's role as he seems, as far as I am concerned, to be the primary author and supreme editor of the Christian narrative. Many of the NT books were written decades after the events by people who weren't even present. Even the supposed books written by the disciples - many, many years later - are sometimes of dubious provenance with textual analysis raising suspicion of the consistency of authorship.

Finally, what evidence is there that the disciples were actually martyred? It's become a Christian traditional belief, but there's no good evidence for it at all. Christians closer to the time - i.e. 2nd century - believed that Peter, Paul, and James were martyred, but no other even close to contemporary sources support that for the others. I think this underscores a major problem in trying to discuss historical facts - Christians have created traditional beliefs about X, but that doesn't mean X actually occurred.

For me, the above spells out why it's inevitably problematic to take a supposed event connected to the Bible's characters and then try and draw conclusions from it - if we can't even be sure that the event itself is credible, then no conclusion that follows has a very high confidence bar.


2). I may have asked this before but was over looked. There was a Ceasor after the time of Jesus (perhaps 45-60AD) that had a warning sign on a stone tablet that said "Anybody caught stealing a body from a tomb will be put to death". Now, this is intresting. Why would the ceasor fill this to be necessary? Is this just a coincidence? Now, this was a problem during this time period with people being grave robbers but never stole bodies. Why would the ceasor go through the effort to do this? Many Christians will claim that this "proves" that Jesus body was gone and never found (resurection).

Can you provide an actual source for this, please?

As to why... surely, that's quite simple: Graverobbing tends to be frowned upon by people of all religious and non-religious persuasions (or course they stole bodies too). Not sure why this is at all relevant to Jesus.


3). Ive always had a problem with all the gospels that "didnt make it" into the Bible. As in Gospel of Thomas etc...My question here is why were they not included and more importantly when were these "deleted gospels" written? Most Christians claim that these "deleted gospels" were written a few centuries after the event and were not inspired by the holy spirit. I just think this is kinda wierd to be honest. I think this becomes even more of a problem if these "deleted gospels" were written near the same time as the "accepted gospels".

Many of the accepted gospels were written after the facts too, but that didn't stop them being included.

Really, it just underscores the absurdity of the supposed infallibility of the Bible when human councils cherrypicked the bits that were politically acceptable or expedient at the time and rejected others. I can't personally believe that the textual analysis and understanding of historical method were sophisticated enough in the 4th century to divine what texts were original, unamended and contemporary.

4). Do you believe there is ANY truth in the "borrowing from other religions" idea for Jesus? Such as Horus or any of the mythacal greek gods? Ive seen many claims that the "dying and rising" Gods existed long before Jesus. I heard claims of just about everything Jesus said and did was actually done by these false deities long before. Such as (I forget which God said this) I am the way, the truth and the life......I am the true vine....and then of course the crucifiction and ressurection. Again, it is "claimed" that just about everything Jesus did was taken from Pagan myths around that time period. Do you think there is anything truth in this?

I don't think it's a simple process. It's not like writers were actively seeking to borrow ideas from other religions, but rather that there were common beliefs that were spread between cultures over great tracts of land, and ultimately; a good yarn is a good yarn, although sometimes it needs a bit of acceptable contextualizing for it to work in a time or place. I would suggest that there were essentially established tropes for what gods did, how prophets behaved, what descriptions were expected of them, and these were just woven in from the outset as already accepted knowledge. I don't think there was any intent to plagiarize, rather it was just a suite of already established beliefs in the workings of the divine.

What you can say, regardless of whether it was intentionally plagiarized or not, is that there are obvious examples that predate Christianity or Jesus of gods coming down to the world in mortal form and consequently able to experience the frailty of the human body, and of gods dying and then being resurrected. The latter is so widely spread as to have it's own label for the phenomenon: resurrection deity. Not at all coincidentally, these stories (i.e. Persephone or Ishtar) happen to be from the ancient Near East and almost certainly were firmly established in the consciousness of the peoples of the region. Again, this doesn't mean that the Jesus narrative was plagiarized, rather this suite of descriptions and events were simply expected of this kind of situation - this is just what gods do.
 

Steelers1981

New Member
I'm not sure why it would be necessary to speculate about what the disciples believed given that we have very little access to their minds. We can say with a high level of confidence that they were highly devout, probably outright zealous from a modern perspective, and consequently I am not sure that they're credible witnesses in any manner of speaking. Why do we have to consider whether they thought Jesus rising to heaven was a lie? They could have just strongly believed it regardless of what they saw or didn't see. You only need look around at the extreme actions religious believers will engage in today - absent any adequate evidence to justify their beliefs - to show that extremism isn't predicated on rational decision making.

Rather, all we need to acknowledge is that they believed Jesus was a prophet/son of God, and regardless of what they thought about any details, that belief could have induced them to act in a way they considered consistent with that belief. This means that this point really only tells us that the disciples believed X, not that X occurred. It's no more than anecdote.

Further, it's anecdote that was carefully massaged, amended and edited over the years to best fit and to fill in any gaps. Any discussion of the NT necessarily involves looking at Paul's role as he seems, as far as I am concerned, to be the primary author and supreme editor of the Christian narrative. Many of the NT books were written decades after the events by people who weren't even present. Even the supposed books written by the disciples - many, many years later - are sometimes of dubious provenance with textual analysis raising suspicion of the consistency of authorship.

Finally, what evidence is there that the disciples were actually martyred? It's become a Christian traditional belief, but there's no good evidence for it at all. Christians closer to the time - i.e. 2nd century - believed that Peter, Paul, and James were martyred, but no other even close to contemporary sources support that for the others. I think this underscores a major problem in trying to discuss historical facts - Christians have created traditional beliefs about X, but that doesn't mean X actually occurred.

For me, the above spells out why it's inevitably problematic to take a supposed event connected to the Bible's characters and then try and draw conclusions from it - if we can't even be sure that the event itself is credible, then no conclusion that follows has a very high confidence bar.




Can you provide an actual source for this, please?

As to why... surely, that's quite simple: Graverobbing tends to be frowned upon by people of all religious and non-religious persuasions (or course they stole bodies too). Not sure why this is at all relevant to Jesus.




Many of the accepted gospels were written after the facts too, but that didn't stop them being included.

Really, it just underscores the absurdity of the supposed infallibility of the Bible when human councils cherrypicked the bits that were politically acceptable or expedient at the time and rejected others. I can't personally believe that the textual analysis and understanding of historical method were sophisticated enough in the 4th century to divine what texts were original, unamended and contemporary.



I don't think it's a simple process. It's not like writers were actively seeking to borrow ideas from other religions, but rather that there were common beliefs that were spread between cultures over great tracts of land, and ultimately; a good yarn is a good yarn, although sometimes it needs a bit of acceptable contextualizing for it to work in a time or place. I would suggest that there were essentially established tropes for what gods did, how prophets behaved, what descriptions were expected of them, and these were just woven in from the outset as already accepted knowledge. I don't think there was any intent to plagiarize, rather it was just a suite of already established beliefs in the workings of the divine.

What you can say, regardless of whether it was intentionally plagiarized or not, is that there are obvious examples that predate Christianity or Jesus of gods coming down to the world in mortal form and consequently able to experience the frailty of the human body, and of gods dying and then being resurrected. The latter is so widely spread as to have it's own label for the phenomenon: resurrection deity. Not at all coincidentally, these stories (i.e. Persephone or Ishtar) happen to be from the ancient Near East and almost certainly were firmly established in the consciousness of the peoples of the region. Again, this doesn't mean that the Jesus narrative was plagiarized, rather this suite of descriptions and events were simply expected of this kind of situation - this is just what gods do.
Thanks again Aron. To answer your question or really my question from the last post (2) about the ceaser inscription about the warning of stealing bodies from the tomb was called the Nazareth inscription and it is widely believed now to not have anything to do with Jesup but rather some dude from 20BC.

You have helped me tremendously on getting rid of all this false garbage I have had for a long time and I am continuing to go thru your videos, trying to learn as much as I can.

In quite a few of your videos you have made a challenge to creationist (I am no longer one) to give one single proof that there is a God. One question I believe is more difficult than any other is, why can't we create life from non living material today? In other words, we have the technology, the intelligence, the multi million dollar labs and the incintive. However, we haven't even come close to creating life. How can this be? And if we can't do it today in our labs, how the hell did it happen in nature by itself?

Yes, a few proteins have been created but this is far from life.

Yes, Craig Venter copied an existing bacterial genome and transplanted into another cell, but this isn't creating life. Instead this is taking what was already alive. I believe everything you have said because you back it up and explain. However, this question is really the million dollar question. Because with technology, intelligenince, million dollar labs and an agenda and we still can't come close to creating life from non life.

I feel if any one has a good answer to this, it'd be you.

Thanks Aron Ra
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
Thanks again Aron.

Just to note Steelers1981.... I'm not Aron! :)

I'm just replying in the meantime, but Aron Ra may also add further comments later.

In quite a few of your videos you have made a challenge to creationist (I am no longer one) to give one single proof that there is a God. One question I believe is more difficult than any other is, why can't we create life from non living material today? In other words, we have the technology, the intelligence, the multi million dollar labs and the incintive. However, we haven't even come close to creating life. How can this be? And if we can't do it today in our labs, how the hell did it happen in nature by itself?

Well, this takes quite a lot to unpack.

Firstly, and perhaps best to get out of the way first - no, we don't have the technology. To say we have the technology is to say we have the ability to do it, but we don't. I don't know how you can suggest that 'we haven't come close' because that would presuppose we know how to do it and can measure when we're nearly there, but that's not how discovery works. No one knows how close we are, or even if it's actually achievable, but that's exactly why science is so vital an enterprise - it is forever pushing the frontiers of knowledge.

Perhaps the most important aspect of answering your contention is to remember that nature can perform billions of iterative 'experiments' second by second, day by day, for hundreds of millions of years through chemical interactions occurring in situ under varying conditions, while humans - despite having the ability via their intelligence and agency to guide those experiments towards intentional ends - have only actually been at this whole genetics lark for under a century.

That amounts to perhaps tens of thousands of human geneticist researchers in the entire history in the universe, with the vast majority of those researchers not personally engaged in exploring or experimenting on the topic of how to create life. You can count the number of observations made by all humans ever, so a more accurate rendition would be to acknowledge we're right at the outset of our knowledge acquisition here, not running out of ideas with few avenues left to explore.

This then puts the comparison of natural occurrence into a more realistic perspective.

From what evidence we can see, life began on Earth relatively quickly after the Late Heavy Bombardment. 'Relatively quickly' meaning 'within several hundred million years'. If you imagine the surface of the Earth being covered in an array of molecules numbering in the trillions with varying distributions, an array of varying local environmental conditions, and all these experiencing an array of chemical interactions, and this occurring continuously everywhere on the Earth, every second, for several hundred million years, then you start to see how many opportunities there could have been for the right suite of events to produce life, and it's quite plausible that life started multiple times and failed. It's also quite possible that the suite of forces, interactions, and conditions are so overwhelmingly rare that it is unlikely we'd 'chance' on such specificity, but given the natural conditions that it was just bound to happen at some point.given sufficient time.

There's a lot to discuss here, but to keep it brief, I want to point out that we are, in fact, making significant progress in the artificial creation of life. Humanity is currently developing, producing, and generally tinkering with wholly manufactured synthetic cells. For example:


How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratch​


Built from the bottom up, synthetic cells and other creations are starting to come together and could soon test the boundaries of life.
 

he_who_is_nobody

Well-Known Member
One question I believe is more difficult than any other is, why can't we create life from non living material today?
We do not know, but it is not like we have seen life start by magic.

Right now, there is a question: How did life start on earth? We have a myriad of observations that show us that everything we attributed to magic (e.g., lightning, volcanoes, comets, language, the diversity of life, etc...) actually had a naturalistic origin to it. We do not know how life started, but why would we think magic had anything to do with it when that explanation has never been correct?
 

AronRa

Administrator
Thanks AronRa. Sorry I wasnt replying here before, i wasnt signed in at those times so it wasnt allowing me to reply directly from this site. However, for now on, I will reply here.

So far you have answered many of my questions fairly satisfactoraly. The last couple days ive been looking and studying up on the historical Jesus. Its amazing how much we take for granted that he even excisted. So, with that said, I have a couple questions pertaining to that topic that maybe you could help with.

1). Christians talk about the matyrment of the disciples as "proof" that they truly saw the risen Christ. In other words, nobody dies for something they know is a lie. This leads me to believe that maybe all or most of the disciples are just fictious charactors perhaps? I dont know, what are your thoughts on the matyrment of the disciples? Because I agree, you will never have 11 men be tortured and killed for something they know is a lie.
To my experience, people WILL lie for what they believe. Leading creationist pseudoscientists have to lie as a matter of course. Several believers have confessed to me that they don't care what the truth is and don't want to find out, that they're gonna believe whatever they want to believe regardless what the truth is. When I offer to prove evolution to their satisfaction, they run like cockroaches when the kitchen light comes on. Faith is about make-believe, and does not care what the truth is. I have seen people attempt to strengthen their faith by wiping out their finances or even killing their own children on the assumption that if the belief is desperate enough, then it might come true. Then there are people who are just stupid and credulous, like the Heaven's Gate cult, who all drank poison in the hopes that their departed souls could catch a ride on the comet Hale-Bopp. People are stupid and irrational sometimes. It's not any more complicated than that.

2). I may have asked this before but was over looked. There was a Ceasor after the time of Jesus (perhaps 45-60AD) that had a warning sign on a stone tablet that said "Anybody caught stealing a body from a tomb will be put to death". Now, this is intresting. Why would the ceasor fill this to be necessary? Is this just a coincidence? Now, this was a problem during this time period with people being grave robbers but never stole bodies. Why would the ceasor go through the effort to do this? Many Christians will claim that this "proves" that Jesus body was gone and never found (resurection).
Grave robbing is and has been illegal in every culture, not just post-Christian society. The reason for robbing graves is not just to steal whatever they were buried with, but also to use the corpses themselves for ritual magic.

3). Ive always had a problem with all the gospels that "didnt make it" into the Bible. As in Gospel of Thomas etc...My question here is why were they not included and more importantly when were these "deleted gospels" written? Most Christians claim that these "deleted gospels" were written a few centuries after the event and were not inspired by the holy spirit. I just think this is kinda wierd to be honest. I think this becomes even more of a problem if these "deleted gospels" were written near the same time as the "accepted gospels".
None of the gospels were written from an eyewitness perspective and all of them have contradictions. The four that made it tried to cast Jesus as the new David, the new Moses or as a king. Then John attempted to re-cast him as a god. The other 16 gospels had different ideas about what that character should be. Jesus is rather like Krishna in a few respects, one being that there are so many adventures attributed to him. According to Bhakti Hindus, Krishna was equivalent to the Superman thousands of years ago. He made the blind see, yes, but he could also defeat any opponent in any kind of contest.

4). Do you believe there is ANY truth in the "borrowing from other religions" idea for Jesus? Such as Horus or any of the mythacal greek gods? Ive seen many claims that the "dying and rising" Gods existed long before Jesus. I heard claims of just about everything Jesus said and did was actually done by these false deities long before. Such as (I forget which God said this) I am the way, the truth and the life......I am the true vine....and then of course the crucifiction and ressurection. Again, it is "claimed" that just about everything Jesus did was taken from Pagan myths around that time period. Do you think there is anything truth in this?
The character of Jesus is apparently a compilation of several fictional characters and maybe a few real ones. Parts of his story are taken from John the Baptist and from the tale of Moses. Others have parallels with Mithras and of course Krishna. But the strongest connections are in Greek mythology, with Prometheus, Hercules and Dionysus especially, but not so much Horus, and one real Greek also, Apollonius of Tyana. I suspect there were more than one actual Jewish person contributing to the Jesus legend too. But it's hard to say what, because even believers sometimes admit that we can only reasonably 20% of Jesus' words to the actual person, and other stories (like the cursing of the fig tree and sparing the adultress) were known to have been added later. That's even before we start talking about Timothy putting words into the savior's mouth.
 
Top