Creation: Abiogenesis Part I
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Creation: Abiogenesis Part I”.
17 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
Find me on Facebook
Safe Site
We are committed to keeping the content on this site
family friendly and child safe.
-
Gregg & Hallee
Regarding “Abiogenesis Theory Outline” above, the terminology “exactly right” is not appropriate. This implies picking an improbable case from a sea of more probable cases, which does indeed seem difficult. Evolution and especially chemical evolution is better thought of as a spontaneous process arising from the natural creation of order that arises in response to energy gradients. I am using the phrase “spontaneous process” in the non-equilibrium thermodynamic sense, i.e. reaction coordinate flows “downhill”.
Try reading “Into the Cool”
http://www.intothecool.com/
So, in your imaginary world, the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply and order is the same as information.
I’m not up alot on Abiogenisis but, being in the medical field, there are some things I would like to point out. In short, boys were to be circumsised on the 8th day. (Genesis) In babies, the prothrombin level (clotting factor) becomes adequate between 5 to 7 days. However, on the 8th day, this level is peaked and, is in a more than adequate level. Now, how would these primitive people have known that if a Divine info source didn’t supply it.
Also, whe they came in contact with a “discharge”, whether blood, puss etc, they would cleanse in running water. (emphasise running) and, incases of leprosy, or other disease, they would make the victims go outside of camp. (today, we call it quarantine), they burned the clothes and, would “purify” implements by fire, and/ or running water. Today we know that leprosy is a bacterial disease that can be passed from person to person. BUT, back then, they thought it to be hereditary. So, if it was hereditary to the rest of the world, where would these “chosen ones” get the instructions to treat it as a bacterial infection and, not a hereditary illness. There are many more examples but, think about it? Abiogenesis is bull because, even if it had validity, you would still need to have a basic info source to teach the “spontaneous lefe forms” how to live. To me, AG makes no sense.
It seems obvious to me that the time of circumcision relating to blood clotting could have been determined from experience. If the babies bled a lot (or bled to death) when it was done earlier, they would have learned that it was safer to do it later.
It seems obvious? Really?
.
I think if I were floating the, “Let’s mutilate every male infant’s penis” trail balloon, the first few deaths would have deterred the entire notion as a good idea, much less as a commandment from the creator of the universe. It seems obvious to me that the first few deaths would have sewn a great deal of doubt upon the veracity of any such claim of deity. It doesn’t leave any room for error, really, much less trial and error.
.
It is difficult for me to relate to your world view sometimes. The things that are so “obvious” to you are accompanied with a baggage cart load of what are, to me at least, really unreasonable assumptions.
.
Nevertheless it is always instructional.
.
God Bless you.
Gregg
I did not expect that response.
” It seems obvious to me that the first few deaths would have sewn a great deal of doubt upon the veracity of any such claim of deity. It doesn’t leave any room for error, really, much less trial and error.”
Apparently there’s a ruling in the Talmud that if two brothers bleed to death from circumcision, subsequent male children in that family don’t have to be circumcized.
So there were occasional deaths, at least at some point in history, and they did not stop doing it, except in those immediate families.
Also the Bible talked about adults being circumsized, didn’t it? So the practice could have started with adults and then gone to younger ages.
And I don’t think we know why the practice started anyway. There’s no reason a deity, or belief in a deity, had to be involved.
Well, actually it started because God told Abram (who became Abraham) in Genesis 17 that every male from then on, from slave to 8-day-old baby, be circumcised as a sign of God’s covenant with him (and his descendants.) It’s an outward sign of an inward commitment to God.
I didn’t read carefully what M. Francis said. So reading again I see that if what M. Francis posted is correct, then there is adequate prothrombin by 5 days. (I don’t know anything about how serious the bleeding problem is without that.)
So if I understand correctly, M. Francis is making the point that this is evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired because those people could not have known that prothrombin peaked by 8 days and yet they chose to schedule their circumcisions on or after the 8th day.
It seems to me that we don’t know why they chose that day. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with the prothrombin level. It could have nothing to do with the baby’s health at all but have some other significance. It could have to do with the baby’s or mother’s health but something other than prothrombin – maybe it’s healthier for the baby if it is able to eat for a few days before this surgery is performed. Or maybe the difference in prothrombin before and after eight days has enough effect on the health of some babies after the surgery that they WERE able to make that observation. This is not evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired. Either it’s important for health in which case they were able to observe it, or it’s sufficiently unimportant for health that they wouldn’t have been able to observe it – but then why was it important enough for a deity to have built it into the tradition?
I am not sure what Gregg meant in reaction to my comment. But maybe he meant that people wouldn’t do circumcisions at all (especially if occasionally they had negative health effects) unless they were told to do so by a deity. If you look at the various things that people in other cultures and religions have done as traditions, I don’t think you can say that humans wouldn’t have thought this up and incorporated it into their culture without a divine command.
Hi M.Francis,
.
To me, circumcision without antiseptic or anesthetic doesn’t sound like a great idea, even after 8 days. I’m sure they could have found a better symbol to indicate that they were a special people.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Years ago when I first encountered the circumcision data in a Rex Maxwell M.D. book, it sparked my curiosity. Another interesting little factoid I discovered during the course of my research was that women who marry men who are circumcised had much lower or even non-existent incidence of cervical cancer or pre-cancerous cell growth on the cervix compared to women who married (or had promiscuous sex with) uncircumcised men. Interesting, no?
.
As far as Abiogenesis, it is simply an article of faith in the Darwinian religion. It is absolutely not supported by science in any way.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Hi Gregg,
.
Maybe you’re right and circumcision is beneficial. In that case it’s hard to see why Paul was so against it. I appreciate it was a symbol of the law, but in light of its medical benefits it would seem sensible to say that Christians should continue to practice it, in the same way that they continued to abstain from blood (Acts 15:20).
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Congratulations on a comment that doesn’t involve Vitamin C.
Hi Gregg,
.
Just on point 8… you are aware that bacteria are asexual, aren’t you? They don’t marry. They just divide into duplicate copies of themselves.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
You are aware that a tongue can be put inside a cheek, are you not?
Humorous? Vaguely. Clear? No. I’m really not sure which bits of your posts are tongue in cheek.
.
Anyway, you forgot to mention that the bacterium would need a pastor to marry it…
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Wouldn’t the pastor bacteria have to evolve first?