Origins of life

Okie Boarder wrote: So, for those that don't think creation is plausible, what do you think is the plausible explanation for the origins of life?

I have no idea how the earth and we came to be nor do I think any of us will ever know.

With the regards to creation and what the Bible says, remove yourself from your faith for a second. Forget what the Bible says and what is taught in church on Sunday and think about this.

The story of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God creating the earth and all of its inhabitants in the way the Bible says it was created is such a sensational one that it just seems too unbelievable to believe. Would you agree? If the Bible didn't say that, it would be an insane thing to think, no?

I look at the Bible as being a moral guide with many life lessons taught by using a liberal dose of metaphor and rhetoric and that includes the part about creation.

Example. Jesus walked on water. What does that mean?   My mother will tell you that Jesus physically walked on water as if it were solid ground. Could the writer of that particular scripture not have used that phrase to imply something else? That Jesus didn't actually walk on water, but that his actions were akin to an act such as that?

Trying not to veer off too much from the original topic, but it's a difficult subject to discuss w/o bringing in the rest of the Biblical stuff.

I think we see what we want to see. I've seen events in my life unfold that others have said were a result of "divine intervention." I never connected those dots.

Swatkinz, I do agree that the accounts of the Bible are pretty spectacular.

Waterdog wrote: Scientist vs Creationist . The Bible IS full of truth/facts. Its also full of parables, life lessons that are intended to make ME a better man.     Knowone know's how old the world is. It was around way before the sun dial or Timex. For shure.

Good Morning Dave,

No stress. Maybe God did do all that, I have no idea. I think that your scenario is similar to that proposed by Joe above. What you are saying is that if God acted like exactly what we see could we detect him/her scientifically? No we could not.

This is the whole point. If God is supernatural, as I think we can all agree, then there is by definition no way that God can be measured or recorded in any scientific sense.

My problem with this thread is not that some folks believe in God (that doesn't disturb me in the least by itself) it is the fact that the same folks who believe in a supernatural and mysterious force who requires faith to believe in, also insist that they can prove the existence of this hidden being using evidence. This makes no sense. I have not been trying to disprove God here, only shoot down any notion that the evidence can prove that there is a God.

You can see the hand of God in the evidence if you want, perhaps that has been supernaturally revealed to you, I cannot say. You can see no hand of God in the evidence, that is certainly the most simple explanation for things.

What you cannot say is that evidence in the natural world as we currently understand it needs a God; in other words nothing that we currently know of in the natural world requires any outside supernatural force to exist/occur. The only God you have is a God of the (ever shrinking) gaps, and I don't think that is the kind of God anybody wants (except Ken Ham and his ilk apparently).

As I said before, it is not important to me how Life began. I have some ideas from things I have read and heard that seem plausible to me, but I'm pretty sure that they would not seem plausible to most folks on this forum (basically biochemistry, energy, self-organization, and lots of time).

I was once invited to lunch by a young man who I knew as I kid growing up (our parents worked together at the church I grew up in). He is now the lead pastor of his own church, and he asked me what science had to say about the natural world. I told him that really there is no evidence for a creationist god scientifically speaking. He then shared with me an experience he had while being interviewed for a pastoral position at another church. He had been asked point blank by someone if he believed in a literal six day creation of the world. His reply was telling,

"Well... Since the Sun was not created until the fourth day [Genesis 14-19 for those who want to look it up... JD] how do we know how long the first three days really were?"

This apparently stumped the questioner and the interview moved on.

This story is not to undermine anyone's faith. This young man has as much faith as anyone I know. It is not easy to reconcile our experiences and observations on this planet with the existence of any god-like being. This is the lifelong struggle of the faithful (just look at Mother Teresa's private diaries for one example).

If God has revealed herself/himself to you more power to you. If not, good for you as well. Let faith be faith. Don't let your faith rest on the evidence. Faith does not require evidence, indeed it requires a lack of evidence. If you want or need an evidence-based "faith" (as some here seem to) you might want to look into your local agnostic/atheist meetings.

I think that starting up a conversation slash argument about religious opinions and other controversial topics is a good way for people who have a common fellowship (in our case boating etc) to find things to dislike about one another.
In that regard, what a massive fail this entire post has been.
I don't believe the Off Topic section was designed for this type of conversation.
I know I am not around much, but that's my 2 cents for what they are worth.
I encourage all to quit this one while you are ahead, and perhaps even delete it from the forum.

If you think I am out of line, then I apologize. But if that is the case then I suggest the next topic be on abortion rights.

Corey.