Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that complex life evolved on its own? Is an alternative explanation offered by LDS belief reasonable?

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, TheDude said:

Now let's start an analysis of Genesis (or rather, game of speculation) since I know you want to go there.

 

 

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe that through the Spirit of God, Moses had a vision where he saw the life of the Earth from its early stages.  It seems to me that if he were given a daylong vision of the primordial Earth before the planet Theia collided with it, he would probably see:

1. A "formless" Earth without major landmasses covered in a largely molten surface, including water.
2. A thick atmosphere caused by volcanic outgassing and thick water vapor due to hotter conditions.  This, coupled with the Sun's substantially lower intensity could have limited its visibility while some level of light from it was making it through the atmosphere, allowing day and night cycles to be perceivable.
3. No moon because it wasn't yet formed by the collision of Theia.

 

The word "raqia", translated "expanse" in the ESV, may have meant something like "solid canopy", but we don't know that.  Continuing with the theory that Moses is seeing a vision, and this time skipped forward into another daylong period, it may be describing the formation of atmosphere thin enough that stars now could have been visible, though Moses would not have understood the physics of what he was seeing.  If Moses were indeed using the word "raqia" to mean "solid canopy", I think this can be forgiven due to his lack of scientific understanding.  Well-educated people refer to "sunrise" and "sunset" despite the fact that the Sun doesn't in fact rise or set in the sky, but rather, it appears to do so from our vantage point due to the Earth's rotation around it.

 

I don't think these verses require much commentary.  If Moses' vision were moved forward in time for another daylong period,  he may have observed land masses on the surface of the planet and along with plants.

 

It seems to me that verses 14-19 must be out of the natural sequence of what Moses may have been viewing, because it is not logical that plant life could have arisen on the surface of the Earth before the appearance of the Sun and Moon.  Perhaps Moses didn't remember the sequence correctly?  Perhaps God showed it to him out of sequence because Moses asked a question about when plants came into being?  When children watch movies, sometimes they don't watch them in linear order.

 

I am going to stop my speculative game for now because it's getting very late.

 

What's good about this is that you realize that you are speculating. And further, you also realize that even when reaching for a symbolic interpretation, it still doesn't work out correctly any better than with taking the literalistic interpretation. Whether symbolic or literal the order is always wrong.

 

Birds and fish as the first life illustrates that. That's not an evidence based claim. Life seems to have arisen from the sea but fish were not the first life and the birds evolved from dinosaurs. It takes grasping at straws to try and reconcile Genesis with a scientifically minded explanation for life on the earth. I have pages and pages of this in the other debate - addressing the problems of both literal and symbolic interpretation of Genesis. 

 

And I also break down what I have learned about Genesis as creation myth. The primary point being how it's arranged.

 

The author (which isn't Moses from an academic perspective) sets up exactly 3 environments in which things can exist within. Followed by placing inhabitants within the 3 environments in the same order. All of which come from a geocentric perspective where the heavens and earth are first created.

 

See below: 

 

1) Heavens and earth (environment) > 4) Sun, moon, stars  (inhabitants)

 

2) Sea and air (environments) > 5) fish and birds (inhabitants)

 

3) Land mass (environments) > 6) land creatures and man (inhabitants) 

 

7) Sabbath / Rest. 

 

What you or the LDS church hasn't paid attention to is that starting out we see the claim of in the "beginning." That's wrong off the bat. The only attempt at fixing a beginning of the universe that I'm aware of is the singularity theory put forward by Penrose and Hawking, which, was later falsified by the discovery of a positive cosmological constant. So there's no indication of a fixed beginning at this point. And we just got done discussing the issue of basically infinite regress and past eternal conditions from a philosophical level. 

Secondly, the earth existing in the universe prior to the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day is another red flag. Apologists who take your direction (Old earth creationists) are always up against this problem. The idea that the sun, moon, and stars were created already in the beginning but simply hidden from sight is on no better footing than any literalist's claims. For myriad reasons. 

 

Thirdly, this is only one that sort of lines up at first glance. Except that land mass preceded the existence of oceans on the earth. So that's off too. Not to mention that all of this carbon based life had to come from carbon, which, came out of the first generation of stars in the universe. 

 

The problems here cover YEC as well as OEC apologetics. The order doesn't ever work out for either party. 

 

And what is found from looking into this issue objectively is that it's simply ancient near eastern creation mythology. It comes from a cosmological view of a flat, round disk earth with the sun, moon, and stars going over head. They didn't understand at the time that the sun is the source of light for day and night. Or that the moon merely reflects the suns light. The writer has them all making their appearances on the 4th day of creation simply for the purpose of setting up the 3 sets of inhabitants behind the 3 sets of environments that the writer had just set up for literary, not literal explanation for the true origins of the earth and life. Despite the apologetic attempts to try and bring the sun, moon, and stars back to before the first day of creation from where they make their intro on the 4th day, it doesn't ever work out. 

 

The over arching point being that it doesn't do your argument any good to poke at holes that you think you see in science and then bring up the Genesis creation myth as the answer or alternative. That is the theme of the debate. And the only thing that that direction of argument can accomplish to outline a situation where NO ONE KNOWS the real origins of life and existence. Because Genesis doesn't provide us with it. And if science doesn't either, then all of these denominations and crazy sub cults don't have any leg to stand on.

 

And it's 'game over' for anyone who doesn't take an agnostic position on origins.......

 

 

[WalterP]

14 hours ago, TheDude said:

You certainly know how to keep a discussion entertaining.  

 

Dude,

 

Making light of midniterider's valid point is not helpful.  He has zeroed in on a fundamental weakness in your line of argument.  People of many different faiths can and do use the same argument you are, yet they arrive at conclusions in keeping with their particular belief systems.  Just as you do.

 

This shows that the kind of argument you and they are making is open to many different interpretations.  It does not specifically identify the LDS god any more than it specifically identifies Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, the god of the Sikhs or any other creator deity.  This argument only levels the playing field, leaving the conclusion open to the personal and subjective choice of the believer.

 

Therefore, your claim that the LDS god is THE agent behind creation and the intelligent design of the universe cannot hold water.  It does for YOU.  But then you are completing your line of argument by using faith, not evidence.  Just as a Sikh, a Muslim or Hindu can do.  So, my question to you Dude is simply this.

 

Do you have any evidence that specifically identifies only the LDS god and no other?

 

Not beliefs, but faith-free evidence.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[TheDude]

7 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Thank you Dude.

 

I see that you reply breaks down into two parts.

 

The science in the linked articles and your personal speculations based upon the science.

 

Please remember that the standard of what we can test, measure and observe was perfectly agreeable to you.

 

Your personal speculations fall outside of that standard.

 

Therefore, I do not find your argument persuasive.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

I acknowledge that it's possible I have made errors in my calculation, but I have not made an unfalsifiable claim to state that for a protein composed of 496 different amino acids to be correctly assembled by random chance, the likelihood would be 1 in 20^496.  To be unwilling to test that information because you don't believe I have sufficient credentials seems to be a fallacy that's the reverse of an appeal to authority.

 

Now, if it's possible for natural selection to be responsible for the assembly of hundreds of different nucleic acids that then assemble 20 amino acids into hundreds of different proteins, and that somehow these building blocks could assemble themselves into a very basic life form, I'd like to see the evidence for it.

[WalterP]

2 minutes ago, TheDude said:

I acknowledge that it's possible I have made errors in my calculation, but I have not made an unfalsifiable claim to state that for a protein composed of 496 different amino acids to be correctly assembled by random chance, the likelihood would be 1 in 20^496.  To be unwilling to test that information because you don't believe I have sufficient credentials seems to be a fallacy that's the reverse of an appeal to authority.

 

Now, if it's possible for natural selection to be responsible for the assembly of hundreds of different nucleic acids that then assemble 20 amino acids into hundreds of different proteins, and that somehow these building blocks could assemble themselves into a very basic life form, I'd like to see the evidence for it.

 

Oh no you don't Dude.

 

You made the claim and the onus is now upon you to support it with evidence.

 

Not a statistical argument, nor a statement of faith, but bona fide evidence that can be tested, measured and observed, as per the standard you agreed to.

 

Remember that?

 

The standard you declared to be perfectly reasonable.

 

 

Dude, this is the second time you've tried to wriggle out of supporting your claims by shifting the question over to someone else.

 

Sorry, but the spotlight remains squarely upon you.

 

 

Your evidence, please.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheDude]

7 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Making light of midniterider's valid point is not helpful.

I'm not the only who thought his way of making the point was humorous:

 

 

9 minutes ago, WalterP said:

He has zeroed in on a fundamental weakness in your line of argument.  People of many different faiths can and do use the same argument you are, yet they arrive at conclusions in keeping with their particular belief systems.  Just as you do.

Hence my first line of argumentation is to assume there is a higher power of some kind, and then attempt to identify that higher power as I haven't yet had the opportunity to get to in much detail.

 

For all I know, there is some real life form out there on which belief in Ganesha is based.  We know that the Greek Zeus (archaic form: Deus), the Roman Jupiter (archaic form: Deus Pater), and the Hindi Dyaus Pita are all based upon belief in the same Indo-European deity which may or may not have been some kind of advanced life form that came to this planet and interacted with people thousands of years ago.  Obviously, that's untestable speculation, but my point is, I don't automatically discard all of the religious conclusions that people come to simply because they are members of another religious belief system.

[TheDude]

6 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Oh no you don't Dude.

 

You made the claim and the onus is now upon you to support it with evidence.

 

Not a statistical argument, nor a statement of faith, but bona fide evidence that can be tested, measured and observed, as per the standard you agreed to.

 

Remember that?

 

The standard you declared to be perfectly reasonable.

 

 

Dude, this is the second time you've tried to wriggle out of supporting your claims by shifting the question over to someone else.

 

Sorry, but the spotlight remains squarely upon you.

 

 

Your evidence, please.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Statistical probabilities/improbabilities are evidence, which is why DNA testing is allowed in a court of law, despite the extremely improbable possibility that an unrelated person could share the same DNA as the accused.  You and others here seem to have rejected the premise that I've made based upon statistical probabilities, and therefore have shifted the onus to explain what alternative theory exists for the rise of life from non-life other than random chance.

Beyond that, the title of the thread includes "Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that complex life evolved on its own?", therefore, this thread is intended to be a dialog where the participants provide alternative proposals and make arguments to support their own position and identify weaknesses in the positions of others (and in their own, when the see them).  If you're not interested in that, I don't see any reason to continue a dialog with you specifically.

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, TheDude said:

I'm not the only who thought his way of making the point was humorous:

 

 

Hence my first line of argumentation is to assume there is a higher power of some kind, and then attempt to identify that higher power as I haven't yet had the opportunity to get to in much detail.

 

For all I know, there is some real life form out there on which belief in Ganesha is based.  We know that the Greek Zeus (archaic form: Deus), the Roman Jupiter (archaic form: Deus Pater), and the Hindi Dyaus Pita are all based upon belief in the same Indo-European deity which may or may not have been some kind of advanced life form that came to this planet and interacted with people thousands of years ago.  Obviously, that's untestable speculation, but my point is, I don't automatically discard all of the religious conclusions that people come to simply because they are members of another religious belief system.

 

But can you see how you are now caught between what you agreed to and what you actually believe, Dude?

 

No argument based upon what is testable, measurable and observable can begin with a religiously-driven assumption.

 

Instead, it must begin with a clean slate, with no assumptions about the identity of the creating deity.

 

It is up to the evidence and the evidence alone to determine the identity of the creator.

 

Your argument must be faith-free to be valid.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[TheDude]

29 minutes ago, WalterP said:

This shows that the kind of argument you and they are making is open to many different interpretations.  It does not specifically identify the LDS god any more than it specifically identifies Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, the god of the Sikhs or any other creator deity.  This argument only levels the playing field, leaving the conclusion open to the personal and subjective choice of the believer.

 

Therefore, your claim that the LDS god is THE agent behind creation and the intelligent design of the universe cannot hold water.  It does for YOU.  But then you are completing your line of argument by using faith, not evidence.  Just as a Sikh, a Muslim or Hindu can do.  So, my question to you Dude is simply this[:] Do you have any evidence that specifically identifies only the LDS god and no other?

 

If the creator deity in most religions is the same God, e.g., El from the religion of the Ancient Israelites, "The Father" from Christianity, Allah from Islam, Brahma from Hinduism, etc., and those concepts exist in their religions because of diffusion, there is no need to demonstrate that all the others are wrong.

[WalterP]

2 minutes ago, TheDude said:

Statistical probabilities/improbabilities are evidence, which is why DNA testing is allowed in a court of law, despite the extremely improbable possibility that an unrelated person could share the same DNA as the accused.  You and others here seem to have rejected the premise that I've made based upon statistical probabilities, and therefore have shifted the onus to explain what alternative theory exists for the rise of life from non-life other than random chance.

Beyond that, the title of the thread includes "Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that complex life evolved on its own?", therefore, this thread is intended to be a dialog where the participants provide alternative proposals and make arguments to support their own position and identify weaknesses in the positions of others (and in their own, when the see them).  If you're not interested in that, I don't see any reason to continue a dialog with you specifically.

 

Please take the time to read these items, Dude.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

4 minutes ago, TheDude said:

 

If the creator deity in most religions is the same God, e.g., El from the religion of the Ancient Israelites, "The Father" from Christianity, Allah from Islam, Brahma from Hinduism, etc., and those concepts exist in their religions because of diffusion, there is no need to demonstrate that all the others are wrong.

 

If...?

 

It would be up to you to present evidence to support your contention, Dude.

 

Thank you.

 

Dude.

[TheDude]

1 minute ago, WalterP said:

 

If...?

 

It would be up to you to present evidence to support your contention, Dude.

 

Thank you.

 

Dude.

You asked me if I had any evidence "that specifically identifies only the LDS god and no other?"  I'm clarifying that I reject the premise that it's necessary to prove that only the God that Latter-day Saints believe in is different than El, Allah, or Brahma.

[WalterP]

Just now, TheDude said:

You asked me if I had any evidence "that specifically identifies only the LDS god and no other?"  I'm clarifying that I reject the premise that it's necessary to prove that only the God that Latter-day Saints believe in is different than El, Allah, or Brahma.

 

You are confused, Dude.

 

Your argument cannot be proved.

 

Proofs exist only in logic and in mathematics.

 

If you don't want to present any evidence, that's fine.

 

But your kind of argument can only be supported by evidence, persuasive or otherwise, it cannot be proved.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[TheDude]

1 minute ago, WalterP said:

If you don't want to present any evidence, that's fine.

Um, hello?

Quote

Statistical probabilities/improbabilities are evidence, which is why DNA testing is allowed in a court of law, despite the extremely improbable possibility that an unrelated person could share the same DNA as the accused.  You and others here seem to have rejected the premise that I've made based upon statistical probabilities, and therefore have shifted the onus to explain what alternative theory exists for the rise of life from non-life other than random chance.

 

24 minutes ago, WalterP said:

But can you see how you are now caught between what you agreed to and what you actually believe, Dude? [...] No argument based upon what is testable, measurable and observable can begin with a religiously-driven assumption.

We can test probabilities.  And I'd like to remind you that I agreed to "going into an in depth explanation using science about why I believe there is some kind of higher power (or powers)".  Also, you seem to be engaging in contentious sophistry, attempting to make a straw man argument wherein every comment that I make in this thread is intended as an argument specifically to you and has been done so as a response to present testable, measurable, and observable scientific evidence.  For now, because I don't see our conversation as particularly useful to either of us, I am going to focus on responses from other individuals.

[florduh]

Statistical probabilities may make a scenario seem improbable, even highly improbable. I say again that defaulting to magic (which is what all creator/god scenarios are) is based on nothing but pure speculation and is in play only because no ironclad answers, or answers to your liking, are present. Actual answers are forthcoming all the time and you'll just have to wait like everyone else before pounding the round peg into the square hole.

[WalterP]

Very well, Dude.

 

However, when it comes to what can be proved, please refer to these articles.

 

https://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=47395b92fb1b

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/19/science-doesnt-prove-anything-and-thats-a-good-thing/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[TheDude]

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I'm with you on the issue of something = something. We can't step it back philosophically and have something arising from true nothing at any point. But this points us back to existence itself as eternal. It's more akin to Brahman and less akin to YHWH in the philosophical sense. And not literally either, to be frank. The reason I saw more akin to Brahman is because the idea is that existence itself is an immanent and transcendent energy consciousness out of which all things arise. Energy and consciousness forming 'itself' into the universe and world that we too are an aspect thereof. 

 

The scenario is one where everything is interconnected and whole. It deals with consciousness in ways that run far deeper than you're touching on by looking to the LDS church. When you delve into these philosophical levels there is always an issue of the containment versus the contained. And that amounts in a religious to the god versus the god above the god. Brahman is something like a god above a lessor god. The containment itself is always greater than that which is contained 'within.' If YHWH is viewed as a extraterrestrial being, corporeal, and essentially something which is NOT existence itself but rather something that exists within existence, then there is always something greater yet to be contemplated. The pantheism is always there. It's always a consideration. Especially where the questions of absolute and ultimate's is concerned.

 

And life and complex life is always going to wrapped up into the framework of this greater contemplation. The pantheistic framework contemplation. What I've alleged over the years in mystical, philosophical terms, is that the pantheistic oriented framework will always consume anything lesser - monotheistic, polytheistic, or whatever. And this applies to the LDS church and it's elaborate imaginations. It could be true that extraterrestrials have always been around. Sure, why not? Maybe even interfering with, manipulating, or creating life in places suited for it. 

 

But none of this touches on the questions of absolute or ultimate. The only connection between us, extraterrestrials, and absolute reality is going to have to go in pantheistic direction that explains the existence of the both us and the extraterrestrials. Or any "corporeal beings," against the larger context and framework of what any corporeal beings exists within the scheme thereof. The vedic tradition provides a sense of self identification and self awareness with the whole - viewed by them as Brahman. People are derived from Brahman. So are the pantheon of gods in Hinduism. They are going into reaches deeper than where the LDS, via Joseph Smith, a character not unlike Zachariah Stichin, has taken it the ancient aliens theories. But even then, we have to acknowledge that the ancient aliens were not YHWH and yeshua, but the Anunaki and such. Again, none of which even begin to tough on the questions of absolute or ultimate. 

 

So what's the god part about it? Just because an intelligent being can go around creating things that makes it god? That seems to be the real problem you're facing here. It's only a lesser god by default against the larger framework of an ultimate reality scenario. And the more you look at it, the less of a god issue it becomes. If we advance, travel through space, and start planting life in suitable regions, does that really make us gods? Or just aspects of a much greater ultimate reality which always overshadows our own individual or "corporeal" existences?

Believe it or not, these are things that I think about myself and your line of supposition here is something that continues to fascinate me.  But I'd like to respond to a few points you've made based upon how I've already reasoned through it, and also identifying any potential issues with your statements that I see.

 

 

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I'm with you on the issue of something = something. We can't step it back philosophically and have something arising from true nothing at any point. But this points us back to existence itself as eternal. [...] It's more akin to Brahman and less akin to YHWH in the philosophical sense. And not literally either, to be frank. The reason I saw more akin to Brahman is because the idea is that existence itself is an immanent and transcendent energy consciousness out of which all things arise.

My understanding is that Latter-day Saints believe that "existence itself [is] eternal [and] an immanent and transcendent energy consciousness", as you put it:

Quote

[I]f there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits [...] have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are [...] eternal."

 

 

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

If YHWH is viewed as a extraterrestrial being, corporeal, and essentially something which is NOT existence itself but rather something that exists within existence, then there is always something greater yet to be contemplated. The pantheism is always there. It's always a consideration. Especially where the questions of absolute and ultimate's is concerned. [...] What I've alleged over the years in mystical, philosophical terms, is that the pantheistic oriented framework will always consume anything lesser - monotheistic, polytheistic, or whatever. [...] So what's the god part about it? Just because an intelligent being can go around creating things that makes it god? That seems to be the real problem you're facing here. It's only a lesser god by default against the larger framework of an ultimate reality scenario.

If the creator being has evolved to the point where he passes into eternity and has the power to create his own universe from another, and all of the universe itself is subject to being acted upon by that being, then he is something that exists above it.

 

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

we have to acknowledge that the ancient aliens were not YHWH and yeshua, but the Anunaki and such

There were civilizations that existed long before the Sumerians, like Gobekli Tepe, so the Sumerian deities, at least in name and in folklore, were not likely the first for humankind to believe in.  Now, just as could be true with El of the Canaanites, Brahma of the Hindi, and Shangdi of the Chinese, etc., Enlil of the Sumerians could be a memory that through diffusion survived about the chief creator deity.  I'd like to point out that I don't believe Yahweh to be that deity.  This is what I stated in the Hell thread

1. I believe that God (El/Elyon) is the most high God.  The father of all of us.
2. I believe that Jesus is Yahweh/Jehovah.  He seems to have made that claim himself in the exchange in John 8:48-59, and he is referred to as "Son of the Most High God" a few times in the Gospels (Luke 1:32, Mark 5:7).

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

And the more you look at it, the less of a god issue it becomes. If we advance, travel through space, and start planting life in suitable regions, does that really make us gods?

If a species advances to the point that we are no longer subject to death, have the ability to organize a universe out of matter from another, and to create life from nonliving matter, would that not then make the difference between that species and gods imperceptible?

[WalterP]

Dude,

 

Yes.  If many scientists believe that the universe expands forever and has no spatial beginning or end, how it it unreasonable to think that the creation of universes has no temporal beginning or end?

 

Many scientists also favour a cyclic paradigm, which requires no Creator.

 

That which has always existed doesn't require an intelligent agent to create it.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[TheDude]

5 minutes ago, WalterP said:

That which has always existed doesn't require an intelligent agent to create it.

Agreed.

 

6 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Many scientists also favour a cyclic paradigm, which requires no Creator.

But we still haven't found a viable theory for how life on this world came from non-life, unless some intelligent life of some kind created it.

[WalterP]

23 minutes ago, TheDude said:

Agreed.

 

But we still haven't found a viable theory for how life on this world came from non-life, unless some intelligent life of some kind created it.

 

That's a fair comment, Dude.

 

Is this a fair one, too?

 

We still haven't found a viable theory for dark energy, therefore some intelligent agent must have created it.

 

 Thank you.

 

Walter.

[TheDude]

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

What you or the LDS church hasn't paid attention to is that starting out we see the claim of in the "beginning."

I disagree.  I thought I already addressed the vagueness in the wording "In the beginning", but when I went back to quote it, I see that I must not have included it in the post.

 

I might be remembering my grammatical terms incorrectly, so bear with me.  To problem with the phrase "In the beginning", is that it modifies the independent clause "God created the Heavens and the Earth", but it does not have an dependent clause to clarify "of what".  Therefore, it's so vague it is subject to the interpretation of the reader.  To that end, "the beginning" could refer to the beginning of what Moses could see in his vision.

 

 

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Birds and fish as the first life illustrates that. That's not an evidence based claim. Life seems to have arisen from the sea but fish were not the first life and the birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Let's think for a moment, though.  If Moses is seeing a daylong vision over the oceans, he clearly would not have seen land animals.  What he would have seen would have been sea life and birds.  Also, think about how commonly people incorrectly refer to pandas and koalas as "bears", and yet they are not.  If someone without scientific understanding is seeing a view from above the ocean in which there are sea creatures and above which there are birds flying, and this vision immediate follows a lifeless earth, it seems likely they would conclude that fish and birds came before land creatures.  Let's also keep in mind that ancient languages were often not as precise as the English language, so it's probable that the ancient Israelites would not have had a proper word to generically describe marine life, including non-vertebrates.

 

 

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

The author (which isn't Moses from an academic perspective)

Correct.  It's also common in academia to postulate that the author of Genesis 1 is not the same as the author of the majority of Genesis 2.

 

 

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

The idea that the sun, moon, and stars were created already in the beginning but simply hidden from sight is on no better footing than any literalist's claims. For myriad reasons. [...] Despite the apologetic attempts to try and bring the sun, moon, and stars back to before the first day of creation from where they make their intro on the 4th day, it doesn't ever work out.

If you have the time, I'd like to know what some of those myriad reasons are.

 

 

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Except that land mass preceded the existence of oceans on the earth.

Correct, but you're assuming that all of the creation events had to have been known to the author of Genesis 1 (which I will continue to refer to as "Moses") for it to be a valid account.  But if someone is viewing a daylong vision where they're seeing a specific point in time where the Earth is covered in water and they didn't see anything before that, it would be understandable for that person to conclude that it was the Earth was created in that state.

 

 

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

And what is found from looking into this issue objectively is that it's simply ancient near eastern creation mythology.

That's certainly a possibility.  Genesis 1 could have been written with the intent of being solely a polemic against other Middle Eastern religions rather than with any intent whatsoever of explaining with accurate detail the creation of the Earth and the arrival of life on its surface.

 

 

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

The over arching point being that it doesn't do your argument any good to poke at holes that you think you see in science and then bring up the Genesis creation myth as the answer or alternative.

I don't believe I brought up the Genesis creation story as the alternative to anything.  I brought it up simply because you asked me to do so indicating that this would be an appropriate thread in which to discuss it.

 

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, TheDude said:

 

2 hours ago, TheDude said:

 

If the creator deity in most religions is the same God, e.g., El from the religion of the Ancient Israelites, "The Father" from Christianity, Allah from Islam, Brahma from Hinduism, etc., and those concepts exist in their religions because of diffusion, there is no need to demonstrate that all the others are wrong.

 

 

An atheist might say "Show me this God." Otherwise this God is just imagination.

 

You have mentioned the astronomically impossible odds of chemicals assembling themselves into a living being without an intelligent creator but I have not seen you provide the odds of an intelligent creator existing. Denying natural selection does not prove a deity. It might indicate false dilemma, though.

 

One thing for sure though is amino acids exist.

 

 

[TheDude]

3 minutes ago, midniterider said:

You have mentioned the astronomically impossible odds of chemicals assembling themselves into a living being without an intelligent creator but I have not seen you provide the odds of an intelligent creator existing.

That's actually fair point.  I'll concede that.  I wouldn't know how to calculate the odds of life existing on another planet, much less that it's sufficiently advanced to create life from non-life.

[Joshpantera]

15 hours ago, TheDude said:

Let's think for a moment, though.  If Moses is seeing a daylong vision over the oceans, he clearly would not have seen land animals.  What he would have seen would have been sea life and birds.  Also, think about how commonly people incorrectly refer to pandas and koalas as "bears", and yet they are not.  If someone without scientific understanding is seeing a view from above the ocean in which there are sea creatures and above which there are birds flying, and this vision immediate follows a lifeless earth, it seems likely they would conclude that fish and birds came before land creatures.  Let's also keep in mind that ancient languages were often not as precise as the English language, so it's probable that the ancient Israelites would not have had a proper word to generically describe marine life, including non-vertebrates.

 

What I like about you is that you strike me as someone who is at least trying to remain intellectually honest as you go about defending the bible. I don't see that very often at all. You're also trying to be very fair as you dialogue with us, much appreciated. And you're not beyond admitting when you don't know something or trying to pretend as though you do know it, when you don't. Very admirable on your part. 

 

With all due respect, I will continue to put my mind to work on the apologetic's you're offering for the sake of good sporting fun. 

 

The main issue I'm seeing with the Moses in vision direction is (1) I'm too well aware of the problems associated with an historical Moses in the first place, and (2) while not completely certainty based, the Documentary Hypothesis seems to be a much more objective way of approaching the issue over traditional religiously biased methods.

 

More to the point, if a powerful god went to the trouble of showing Moses a vision of 'captions' from the earth's creation, what was the purpose? Was the purpose to write it down so that people would know and understand the truth about origins?

 

What other purpose could it be?

 

And to then intend that it be written down and that future generations could then look at it and see the truth of it? 

 

If that were the case, why all of the errors, language barriers, and not being able to make sense out of what Moses is witnessing in visions, and so on???

 

Yes, please, let's think about this for a moment. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

16 hours ago, TheDude said:

If you have the time, I'd like to know what some of those myriad reasons are.

 

 

I don't know if you're doing this, but a popular direction for old earth creationist's to take is to claim that the days are symbolic for eons of time. What happens (as you may begin to see in the last post) is that by trying to bring modern scientific understandings back into the ancient creation myth texts, what happens is that the person starts digging themselves into a deeper hole as they try and get out of the initial problems. 

 

They then face several problems. It doesn't say or remotely suggest anywhere that the sun or any star existed right along during the first 3 days of creation. That's modern people trying to back read into texts where it doesn't exist. As it stands they are made on the 4th day. When they try and claims that each day represents eons of time that makes the problem worse. Instead of only 3 days with no sun, moon, or stars, we're then looking at 3 entire segments of eons going by without any sun, moon, or stars which are made on the 4th segment of eons of time. The idea that the days are symbolic of long periods of time only bites them in the ass in debate, by looking at the claim objectively. 

 

16 hours ago, TheDude said:

23 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Except that land mass preceded the existence of oceans on the earth.

Correct, but you're assuming that all of the creation events had to have been known to the author of Genesis 1 (which I will continue to refer to as "Moses") for it to be a valid account.  But if someone is viewing a daylong vision where they're seeing a specific point in time where the Earth is covered in water and they didn't see anything before that, it would be understandable for that person to conclude that it was the Earth was created in that state.

 

Again, I have to ask what in the world are we're even talking about if not the means by which a god showed Moses how the earth was created???

 

If the point is to 'reveal in vision' or whatever 'how the earth was created' by viewing scenes, what we have from it is what is written in the book of Genesis. For everyone to read. There's no clear purpose for doing any of this, no reason for any of the visions, if the person receiving the vision is not capable of UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE'S SEEING or CORRECTLY WRITING IT DOWN ensuring that the TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION is unmistakable through time. 

 

The hole gets increasing deeper as you attempt to dig out of it. And it's like quick sand. The harder you struggle the faster you'll begin to sink. And it's because you're starting off with a faulty premise that is evident as faulty and has no ability to become correct through adding apologetic's. The apologetic's are what dig the hole deeper, sink in the quick sand, etc., etc. 

 

16 hours ago, TheDude said:

That's certainly a possibility.  Genesis 1 could have been written with the intent of being solely a polemic against other Middle Eastern religions rather than with any intent whatsoever of explaining with accurate detail the creation of the Earth and the arrival of life on its surface.

 

And if so, then we're facing a glaring situation: It wasn't a divine vision accurately solving the mystery of origins! 

 

If it's not how the earth and life were really created, then it is not therefore any type of alternative to scientific theory whatsoever. It's just a near eastern polemic possibly, borrowed creation myth from the Sumerian and Babylonian cultures, or basically any number of things that do not amount truth, certainty, or absolute knowledge and / or explanation for the origins of the planet or life on the planet. 

 

Which means no literal truth going into the Elohim issue either. Which means no literal truth going into Joseph Smith coming along in the 19th century and conjuring up this religious idea which is little more than a predecessor to Zachariah Stitchin and Eric Von Daniken during the following century. None of it, not the ancient alien theories now, not the ancient alien theories of Smith back then, walk us back to true origins by way of the bible or pretty much any other ancient text. 

 

16 hours ago, TheDude said:

I don't believe I brought up the Genesis creation story as the alternative to anything.  I brought it up simply because you asked me to do so indicating that this would be an appropriate thread in which to discuss it.

 

 

You said that you think the LDS church better explains origins than what we find in science. That's why we're discussing Genesis. Why wouldn't we be? Do you propose that the LDS church provides a better explanation than science free and clear of the book of Genesis? 

 

Please explain further. 

 

[WalterP]

  14 hours ago, TheDude said:

Agreed.

 

But we still haven't found a viable theory for how life on this world came from non-life, unless some intelligent life of some kind created it.

 

That's a fair comment, Dude.

Is this a fair one, too?

We still haven't found a viable theory for dark energy, therefore some intelligent agent must have created it.

Thank you.

Walter.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dude,

 

I could be wrong about the way you are arguing this, but it looks as if you are invoking a supernatural agency to account for something science cannot currently explain.  If so, then how is this any different from a God-of-the-Gaps argument?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

 

Could you please elaborate and explain further?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.