How did life come to be? Abiogenesis or Divine Creation? Or Are They Both One and the Same?

[somecallmegenius]

Well, according to the Holy Bible:

Genesis 2:5-7 (the creation of Adam):<br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">"The LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

According to the Quran: Chapter 15, verse 26:

"And We did certainly create man out of clay from an altered black mud"

According to Abiogenesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

According to Panspermia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

I also welcome any other theories of creation you may have, preferably ones based in science.

May the best theory win... And by best, I mean the one backed by the most evidence.

[/url]

 

Well, according to the Holy Bible:

Genesis 2:5-7 (the creation of Adam):<br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">"The LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

According to the Quran: Chapter 15, verse 26:

"And We did certainly create man out of clay from an altered black mud"

According to Abiogenesis:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Abiogenesis

According to Panspermia:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Panspermia

I also welcome any other theories of creation you may have, preferably ones based in science.

May the best theory win... And by best, I mean the one backed by the most evidence.

 

Can the mud or clay or dust mentioned in the holy books be montmorillonite?

Also, can God, in going straight from clay (possibly montmorillonite) to man, have skipped the many steps in between which require our current (and some future) knowledge of chemistry, that people could not have understood 2000 years ago? Meaning, in the holy books, they go straight from point A to point Z without any mention of the many points in between? So, it could be that we are made of clay although one which has gone through many chemical and natural processes in order to end with our current bodies (Self-replicating chemicals, enzymes, and reactions all included)... Meaning, I am suggesting, that the modern theory of Abiogenesis and the extremely concise creation stories of the Holy books are not contradictory after all...

 

Do you agree? Disagree?

[iNow]

I don't think it's right to call the biblical or quranic stories "theories." Theory has a very precise meaning in science, and those are mythological fictions, not "theories." It would be like saying there is a "Harry Potter theory" of railroad travel or a "Twilight theory" of maximizing harvest yields in a garden. No, they're not theories. They are stories. They are fictions. They are myths.

 

With that said, I think basic physics and chemistry and vast epochs of time explain the situation perfectly well. There is some open question about the "start," but that's different, and suggesting "goddidit" is hardly an answer. It's a cop-out.

 

 

 

“What is needed is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite.”

~Bertrand Russell

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/nov96.html

[somecallmegenius]

I don't think it's right to call the biblical or quranic stories "theories." Theory has a very precise meaning in science, and those are mythological fictions, not "theories." It would be like saying there is a "Harry Potter theory" of railroad travel or a "Twilight theory" of maximizing harvest yields in a garden. No, they're not theories. They are stories. They are fictions. They are myths.

 

With that said, I think basic physics and chemistry and vast epochs of time explain the situation perfectly well. There is some open question about the "start," but that's different, and suggesting "goddidit" is hardly an answer. It's a cop-out.

 

 

 

"What is needed is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite."

~Bertrand Russell

 

http://www.talkorigi...onth/nov96.html

 

Good point. I may have mistakenly implied that the creation stories in the Bible and Quran are theories. I certainly did not mean to.

Question still applies though. Isn't it possible, and potentially logical (as suggested in the bottom of my first post), that the stories in the Quran and Bible are point-A-to-point-Z abridged versions of what actually happened?

[iNow]

I really don't think so, myself. No. I think what happens is we often read those stories and try to force our own interpretations on to them to make them "fit" what we know to be true. Humans are quite good at finding patterns in things. We can look at just about any random smattering of items and "see" something important. That doesn't mean something "important" is truly there, though.

 

You can believe anything you want, but my own belief is that those are just stories and any similarity to reality are essentially little more than coincidence, and are not there by design. I think there are some good stories in those books, and some really silly ones, too. I also think they're not a path to knowledge since we must use subjective interpretations to make those stories appear to fit what we know through other more objective means.

[mooeypoo]

Well, according to the Holy Bible:

Genesis 2:5-7 (the creation of Adam): "The LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Um, I don't mean to be petty, but that's not my version of the bible says...?

 

I read it in hebrew, so here's a parallel Hebrew/English version: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm

 

 

5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;

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

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

 

This might not entirely affect your point, but it does point out a potential problem of translation.

 

First, the English version is translated and hence pre-interpreted. There are inaccuracies in the subtle meanings of the text and that makes it very hard to decide what it tells actually happened. Second, the bible wasn't actually physically written until around 70 AD, at which point the elders grouped scrolls together, discarded what tehy didn't want (and there are quite a number of discarded texts that weren't included in the bible) and regrouped the rest. How can we be sure it's even an accurate depiction of the "original" story?

 

Even IF the original story is a historical account, it wasn't written on paper until hundreds (and supposedly thousands) of years later. Until then, it passed from 'father to son' words of mouth through the generations. We don't know how much it got varied -- probably quite a lot. So even if it did, in the beginning, theoretically, explain some creation, then after thousands of years of small variation it may not be even remotely similar to the intended original.

 

~mooey

[TheVillageAtheist]

Why exactly are we limiting ourselves to the Abrahamic creation stories? Why not the thousands of other creation stories?

[somecallmegenius]

Why exactly are we limiting ourselves to the Abrahamic creation stories? Why not the thousands of other creation stories?

 

We are not limited to those stories. You are welcome to add more...

 

 

 

 

And to mooeypoo, yeah I can't read Hebrew. I am planning to learn it.

But as I do read Arabic, I am sure of the accuracy of the translation of the Quran version.

And the Quran was first written reasonably closely to when it was first read by Prophet Mohammad.

And it has been the same ever since. Quran was first read around 600 AD if I'm not mistaken.

Montmorillonite Abiogenesis theory did not come about until the 19th century..

 

So that verse of the Quran could not have possibly been modified after the Abiogenesis theory was first postulated...

[mooeypoo]

And to mooeypoo, yeah I can't read Hebrew. I am planning to learn it.

But as I do read Arabic, I am sure of the accuracy of the translation of the Quran version.

And the Quran was first written reasonably closely to when it was first read by Prophet Mohammad.

And it has been the same ever since. Quran was first read around 600 AD if I'm not mistaken.

Montmorillonite Abiogenesis theory did not come about until the 19th century..

Hm, I was under the impression it was a lot later, but even still. 600AD is, supposedly, more than 2000 years after creation. Where was the story up until then?

 

Anyways, as I said before (and in the other thread) this is more of a 'quibbling' point. I think it's quite easy to make connections (any connection, really) from the relatively vague languge of the ancient texts (of the bible, of the quran, of the stories of Gilgamesh, etc) to what we think happened. The reason isn't necessarily because they are similar, but because the texts are so vague that they allow enough room for interpretation that we can fit almost anything in.

 

I think that alone is suspicious as to state that they explain a particular theory. For that matter, if we discover an alternative theory, would creation story fit it? If we discover beyond a shadow of a doubt that Panspermia is true (for the sake of argument alone), would the creation stories in the ancient texts fit it? Probably yes. Doesn't that show them to be almost useless in explaining (or describing) anything real?

 

~mooey

[TheVillageAtheist]

We are not limited to those stories. You are welcome to add more...

 

Okay, how about the Makiritare myth, which is that the world is just a god's dream? Or how part of the world is made from concentrated butter, as in the Hindu creation story? Why give the Judeo-Christian myth preference?

 

 

And to mooeypoo, yeah I can't read Hebrew. I am planning to learn it.

But as I do read Arabic, I am sure of the accuracy of the translation of the Quran version.

And the Quran was first written reasonably closely to when it was first read by Prophet Mohammad.

And it has been the same ever since. Quran was first read around 600 AD if I'm not mistaken.

Montmorillonite Abiogenesis theory did not come about until the 19th century..

 

So that verse of the Quran could not have possibly been modified after the Abiogenesis theory was first postulated...

 

The passages in the Bible about clay are metaphorical, not literal. Clay was the most popular and useful crafting material at the time, so invoking it in the holy literature would have made perfect sense to the people for whom the message was intended. It would be like today if you say that television is a black hole of culture, you don't literally mean that television is a black hole, you mean that television kills culture. The term "black hole" makes you think of destruction, of an inescapable force. The image of god forming man out of clay is exactly the same idea.

 

And if I'm not mistaken, man is created from a clot of blood in the Quran. In any event, even it they were literal, you'll notice that only man is created from clay, not all of life. If God were truly just dumbing-down the scientific explanation of abiogensis, he wouldn't have excluded animals from the process. Of course, clay isn't the only model; we still don't know how life started here.

 

Oh, and as for the compiling of the Quran, supposedly the process began immediately following the prophet's death, so it's easily a more historically-correct document (in the sense of being the actual words spoken by the actual person) than anything else in the Abrahamic faiths. Well, at least prior to the Book of Mormon.

Edited August 1, 2012 by TheVillageAtheist

[Alan McDougall]

Well, according to the Holy Bible:

Genesis 2:5-7 (the creation of Adam):<br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">"The LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

According to the Quran: Chapter 15, verse 26:

"And We did certainly create man out of clay from an altered black mud"

According to Abiogenesis:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Abiogenesis

According to Panspermia:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Panspermia

I also welcome any other theories of creation you may have, preferably ones based in science.

May the best theory win... And by best, I mean the one backed by the most evidence.

 

 

 

Can the mud or clay or dust mentioned in the holy books be montmorillonite?

Also, can God, in going straight from clay (possibly montmorillonite) to man, have skipped the many steps in between which require our current (and some future) knowledge of chemistry, that people could not have understood 2000 years ago? Meaning, in the holy books, they go straight from point A to point Z without any mention of the many points in between? So, it could be that we are made of clay although one which has gone through many chemical and natural processes in order to end with our current bodies (Self-replicating chemicals, enzymes, and reactions all included)... Meaning, I am suggesting, that the modern theory of Abiogenesis and the extremely concise creation stories of the Holy books are not contradictory after all...

 

Do you agree? Disagree?

 

 

God being Infinitely more intelligent than any human could create a being directly from mud, or even leave the mud out and just make man directly from the elements of his creation

 

Tus I agree?

[Greg H.]

God being Infinitely more intelligent than any human

 

^{[Citation Needed]}

[zapatos]

Okay, how about the Makiritare myth, which is that the world is just a god's dream? Or how part of the world is made from concentrated butter, as in the Hindu creation story? Why give the Judeo-Christian myth preference?

No one is giving it preference except you. Somecallmegenius mentions four options and specifically said "I also welcome any other theories of creation you may have".

[TheVillageAtheist]

No one is giving it preference except you. Somecallmegenius mentions four options and specifically said "I also welcome any other theories of creation you may have".

 

I could care less what lip-services he gives to being all-inclusive; I'm concerned with the point he actually attempts to make, which is that the Judeo-Christian creation myth belongs in the conversation because, as he rhetorically asks:

 

Can the mud or clay or dust mentioned in the holy books be montmorillonite?

So "Divine Creation," at least to him, appears to mean specifically the Biblical myth.

[Alan McDougall]

^{[Citation Needed]}

 

 

This is what is believed about God? What type of citation would satisfy you?

[Greg H.]

This is what is believed about God? What type of citation would satisfy you?

 

It was half a joke - but in order to declaritively assert this, you'd have to actually prove that a) God exists, and b) he possesses this quality.

 

It's that part a) that keeps tripping people up.

[zapatos]

I could care less what lip-services he gives to being all-inclusive; I'm concerned with the point he actually attempts to make, which is that the Judeo-Christian creation myth belongs in the conversation because, as he rhetorically asks:

Lighten up. It belongs in this conversation because it is his thread and it is in the Religion forum. It is not up to you what can and cannot be discussed.

[Alan McDougall]

It was half a joke - but in order to declaritively assert this, you'd have to actually prove that a) God exists, and b) he possesses this quality.

 

It's that part a) that keeps tripping people up.

 

Likewise you can not prove to me or anyone that God does not exist?

 

 

You make a valid point but the God of most religions has the qualities of Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence thus if it exists according to their faith is infinite in all those aspects of its Being.

 

I cant prove to you that Gods exists I only have my personal experience of him that brought me back from the edge of death and madness, into his eternal domain of love and promise of eternal existence with him. I dont for one second believe God is exclusive in his love toward man, as many religions would have you believe. God loves everyone!

[Greg H.]

Likewise you can not prove to me or anyone that God does not exist?

 

 

You make a valid point but the God of most religions has the qualities of Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence thus if it exists according to their faith is infinite in all those aspects of its Being.

 

I cant prove to you that Gods exists I only have my personal experience of him that brought me back from the edge of death and madness, into his eternal domain of love and promise of eternal existence with him. I dont for one second believe God is exclusive in his love toward man, as many religions would have you believe. God loves everyone!

 

While I believe that you believe, that belief is not proof. Furthermore, the very idea of omnipotence is logically flawed - remember the old "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" debate. That aside, even if God exists, your claim was not that he knows everything, but that he is more intelligent that any human. You'd have to devise an objective method to test that claim, not just base it on heresay and theology. But this is wandering off topic. I'll just reiterate that my original post was half-joking (as in Wikipedia's infamous citation needed), and we can leave it at that.

[JMJones0424]

Likewise you can not prove to me or anyone that God does not exist?

 

No, nor should it be our aim, as the quest is pointless. Dream up anything then set to prove it doesn't exist.

 

The question posed in the opening post is, in my opinion, not a useful question. No creation myth is accurate. No creation myth is even close to accurate unless you allow for a generous amount of interpretation. If you stretch the meaning of the text of the myth to fit known data, then what value is the myth? If your intent is to validate preconceived notions, then given an appropriate amount of fudge factor, any creation myth can be viewed as being relevant.

 

Invoking god, gods, intelligent designers, universal consciousness, higher intelligences, or any other unverifiable metaphysical entity to answer a question that is firmly rooted in the natural world is merely hand-waving. If your answer can't be tested, it can't be shown to be incorrect. If it can't be falsified, then there is no hope of verification. If an answer can't be verified, then you're just wasting your time as there is no way to distinguish one unverifiable answer from another.

[mooeypoo]

This is what is believed about God? What type of citation would satisfy you?

 

One that shows it as evidence rather than as empty claim? The discussion started out asking if it could be that the creation stories are some sort of symbolic historical overview of creation, and in order to support this assertion (or deny it) one needs to support their claims with logic.

 

This might be the "religion" forum, but we're still in the logical realm of scienceforum. Something like 'it's true 'cause 90% of the population believes it' is not good enough.

 

On top of that, there are many religions around the world who do NOT believe God to be omnipotent, only super powerful. That is, they believe he or she (or they) are more powerful than humans but not infinitely powerful. Since the thread doesn't necessarily discusses a particular religion, you will need to consider your own belief might not be the only belief out there.

 

~mooey

 

Likewise you can not prove to me or anyone that God does not exist?

 

 

Here's the cool thing about science: any claim made needs to be substantiated.

 

"X exists" is a claim.

"X does not exist" is not a claim, because it is without substance; nothing exists unless you show it to exist.

Petty: there are instances where 'x does not exist' is a claim, but this is not one of them, and if you insist, we can go into the philosophical argument of when these might be valid. It's besides the point because your claim ain't it.

 

If I say "Invisible elephants exist", would you ask me to provide evidence? I would hope so. If I tell you that you can't possible prove it wrong, I would be correct. That, however, wouldn't mean I'm right, or that invisible elephants actually exist.

 

Same goes to your claim about God; you are the one making the claim (or rather, the so-called 90% percent you tout as believers) -- therefore, you need to provide proof. Some cases are not all that hard to substantiate. Say, if I told you "the moon exists!" it would be hardly a problem to simply show it to be true the next night. Perhaps we would have to wait for the full moon if we wanted to be completely positive, and/or send a shuttle back there. It's something you can substantiate, though, and people have throughout the millenia.

 

There is no difference with this claim about the existence of God.

 

 

I think that's the main issue with the OP's claim about the creation stories. Could they represent some sort of "this is how it happened" story? Maybe, but what we do know about nature seems to be more against htis idea than for it. Before we can say yes to it, we need some more substantiation, and the main "argument" it seems to raise -- the existence of some higher power "intelligent designer" -- needs substantiation all on its own.

 

For that matter, abiogenesis requires no external beings and has more evidence to its side in terms of existence alone. We know each required step in abiogenesis process CAN exist (we've experimented and had repetitiveness in those experiments) unlike the creation stories that require a God or some supernatural power that in itself is not proven to exist.

 

Okham Razor suggests abiogenesis is preferable. Unless, of course, we find evidence that convinces us to the contrary -- but you need to SUPPLY this evidence, not just assume we just drop logic and jump on the bandwagon of supposed popularity.

 

~mooey

[somecallmegenius]

Hm, I was under the impression it was a lot later, but even still. 600AD is, supposedly, more than 2000 years after creation. Where was the story up until then?

 

Anyways, as I said before (and in the other thread) this is more of a 'quibbling' point. I think it's quite easy to make connections (any connection, really) from the relatively vague languge of the ancient texts (of the bible, of the quran, of the stories of Gilgamesh, etc) to what we think happened. The reason isn't necessarily because they are similar, but because the texts are so vague that they allow enough room for interpretation that we can fit almost anything in.

 

I think that alone is suspicious as to state that they explain a particular theory. For that matter, if we discover an alternative theory, would creation story fit it? If we discover beyond a shadow of a doubt that Panspermia is true (for the sake of argument alone), would the creation stories in the ancient texts fit it? Probably yes. Doesn't that show them to be almost useless in explaining (or describing) anything real?

 

~mooey

 

Vague they are. Cannot argue there. Ok I'm speaking like Yoda. I agree that only the Dogma parts of the ancient texts are still mostly (but not completely) clear. As to creation stories and such, they do leave a lot of room for interpretation... However, it may just be the aging effect... For such texts to be understood over many ages, they needed to be vague and concise when it came to describing certain things...

 

As to where was the story up until then, muslims say that it was sent by God (via an angel) to Mohammad when the Quran was read. However, the mention of mud or dust or clay, whatever you want to call it, did occur in both the Bible and the Quran, which means that at the very least, they do confirm each other on that particular point.

 

As to you calling them "useless in describing anything real", you are equating vagueness to uselessness. Now to dissect the uselessness argument, it depends on what kind of use you are looking for. Scientific use from ancient texts? Not where science is right now, and possibly not ever... However, I believe the purpose of mentioning mud in such texts is to confirm what we are discovering thousands of years later, after we discover it. Meaning, maybe the mention of mud or clay in the creation of man is meant to provide evidence to scientists believing in abiogenesis that God is there, and it does that through mentioning something in texts thousands of years before it's actually confirmed by modern science. Hence, it provides evidence for the existence of higher power by mentioning something that could have been almost impossible for a mere human to predict back then...

 

And I do say it was almost impossible, but if I were to put myself someone else's shoes, I could clearly see how this can still be viewed as a mere coincidence. Maybe whoever wrote the Quran or the Bible just got lucky there... Nevertheless, what I have given is only one example out of many. And the combination of the many examples, could add up to make some believe "Hey. There actually may be a God after all." I can also see how others can maybe find logical explanations of all such instances where the ancient texts seem to match or predict modern scientific observations or theories. After all, believing or not believing is a choice, and it is one of the strongest examples of human free will.

 

Okay, how about the Makiritare myth, which is that the world is just a god's dream? Or how part of the world is made from concentrated butter, as in the Hindu creation story? Why give the Judeo-Christian myth preference?

 

 

 

 

The passages in the Bible about clay are metaphorical, not literal. Clay was the most popular and useful crafting material at the time, so invoking it in the holy literature would have made perfect sense to the people for whom the message was intended. It would be like today if you say that television is a black hole of culture, you don't literally mean that television is a black hole, you mean that television kills culture. The term "black hole" makes you think of destruction, of an inescapable force. The image of god forming man out of clay is exactly the same idea.

 

And if I'm not mistaken, man is created from a clot of blood in the Quran. In any event, even it they were literal, you'll notice that only man is created from clay, not all of life. If God were truly just dumbing-down the scientific explanation of abiogensis, he wouldn't have excluded animals from the process. Of course, clay isn't the only model; we still don't know how life started here.

 

Oh, and as for the compiling of the Quran, supposedly the process began immediately following the prophet's death, so it's easily a more historically-correct document (in the sense of being the actual words spoken by the actual person) than anything else in the Abrahamic faiths. Well, at least prior to the Book of Mormon.

 

As to the mention of clay being metaphorical, that is wide open for interpretation. This right here may be the very reason sects exist in almost every religion, some sects take ancient texts literally, some metaphorically depending on each every expression used in such texts. Therefore, unfortunately, it cannot possibly be proven wether each expression in the ancient texts is meant literally or metaphorically. You do use the popularity of clay as a crafting material (back then) very well. However, that is circumstantial evidence which many would not consider enough to prove that the expression was meant as a metaphor...

 

The clot of blood you speak of is a reference to the blastocyst, which is a stage of mammal fertilization that everyone, even back then, was familiar with. They did not call it the same thing but they had seen and known of its existence what with early abortions and the such... He did not exclude animals as to say that animals were not made of clay, but it is because of the context in which it was spoken that there may not have been room to mention animals within said context. However, that does not imply that only humans were made of said clay...

 

No, nor should it be our aim, as the quest is pointless. Dream up anything then set to prove it doesn't exist.

 

The question posed in the opening post is, in my opinion, not a useful question. No creation myth is accurate. No creation myth is even close to accurate unless you allow for a generous amount of interpretation. If you stretch the meaning of the text of the myth to fit known data, then what value is the myth? If your intent is to validate preconceived notions, then given an appropriate amount of fudge factor, any creation myth can be viewed as being relevant.

 

Invoking god, gods, intelligent designers, universal consciousness, higher intelligences, or any other unverifiable metaphysical entity to answer a question that is firmly rooted in the natural world is merely hand-waving. If your answer can't be tested, it can't be shown to be incorrect. If it can't be falsified, then there is no hope of verification. If an answer can't be verified, then you're just wasting your time as there is no way to distinguish one unverifiable answer from another.

 

I definitely agree with the first part of your statement, about the uselessness of disproving the existence of things. Proving something exists matters much more than proving that something doesn't.

 

As to using God as an answer to natural phenomena yet to be explained, I also agree that that notion defies the very purpose of scientific exploration. And it is wrongly used by many believers to prove God exists. In the words of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and I'm paraphrasing here, people should stop portraying God as a gap in knowledge, because that would mean that God is shrinking as we find out more...

 

As to your evidence about stretching the meaning of a text to fit known data, let me remind you that the transition of non-life to life has not yet been fully explained, there are theories, but they are still in testing phase... But going from clay to montmorillonite (which is a type of clay) is not that far of a stretch by anyone's measure...

 

And may I also remind you that assuming something cannot be verified (which I assume you meant can never be verified), is in and of itself a notion that defies the purpose of scientific exploration. If science has taught us something so far, it is to never deny the possibility of something or the possibility to verify wether something does exist. Who knows? Maybe one day we will find out for sure wether or not divine creation (for a lack of better words) is a myth or reality, using rigorous scientific methods at that. And you know what, I truly hope that day comes as soon as possible so that everyone can put their mind to rest on the most controversial matter of human history.

Edited August 2, 2012 by somecallmegenius

[TheVillageAtheist]

Lighten up. It belongs in this conversation because it is his thread and it is in the Religion forum. It is not up to you what can and cannot be discussed.

 

What the hell are you talking about? I never said the conversation didn't belong in the religion forum, and I never tried to lay out the parameters for what can and cannot be discussed. How about you actually contribute something to the discussion? Or are you contended in being a troll?

[zapatos]

What the hell are you talking about? I never said the conversation didn't belong in the religion forum, and I never tried to lay out the parameters for what can and cannot be discussed.

No, you implied the Judeo-Christian creation myth didn't belong in this conversation. As this is the Religion forum, this is exactly where it belongs.

 

 

I could care less what lip-services he gives to being all-inclusive; I'm concerned with the point he actually attempts to make, which is that the Judeo-Christian creation myth belongs in the conversation because, as he rhetorically asks:

[Greg H.]

What the hell are you talking about? I never said the conversation didn't belong in the religion forum, and I never tried to lay out the parameters for what can and cannot be discussed. How about you actually contribute something to the discussion? Or are you contended in being a troll?

 

Dude chill. Attack less, discuss more.

[Severian]

I see no reason why abiogenesis can't be divine creation.