>George <george@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Re: Creation v. Evolution: the danger of misplaced dogmatism
>"Bob" <tigerx813@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:brIHi.6163$A72.2998@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sep 16, 8:58 pm, George <geo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> The first modern abiogenesis experiment was conducted by Stanley
>>> Miller, in 1953. His experiments produced amino acids, but at the
time,
>>> it
>>> was thought, nothing more complex, and certainly nothing that
reproduces
>>> on
>>> its own. More recent experiments have found flaws in Millers
>>> experiments,
>>> and in his analysis of the biproducts of the reaction. New
experiments
>>> conducted in the past few years, the results of which were published
>>> this
>>> year, indicate that more complex molecules and enymes are produced.
>>
>> Couldn't the second story of creation (Genesis 2) be interpreted to
>> say that all life on earth started with abiogenesis?
>> As it states, there was no vegetation on the earth, just dirt and
>> water. "Then God formed man from the clay of the earth." Since man
>> obviously could not survive in that environment, if you substitute
>> "life" for "man", with man coming much later, abiogenesis/evolution
>> would fit the the story very well.
>> Which then makes one wonder how the earliest biblical writers had the
>> same basic theory as modern scientists.
>>
>> Bob
>
>Some Christians do interpret it that way. The problem here is that clay
is
>not organic. It is a mineral (several, actually). Abiogenesis says that
>self-replicating life originated from complex organic molecules. As an
>aside, why does Genesis have two completely contradictory creation
stories
>(Genesis 1 and Genesis 2)? Couldn't God make up his mind how he did it?
>Secondly, using the Bible as a science book is just plain silly. It's not
a
>science book.
>
>George
>
George,
Genesis does not have two contradictory creation accounts. They are
two accounts looked at from different perspectives. (the details on
this if you are interested)
Concerning the Bible and science, just think about what you are
saying. If the Bible is really from God as it claims, and God created
all things including the natural sciences, then anything in the Bible
touching on a scientific idea, would have to be the truth. Otherwise,
the Bible would be false and not worthy of living one's life by. I
have ALWAYS found the Bible to be in harmony with true science.
Many people respect Jesus (even non-Christians), so here is what Jesus
thought of God's word (such as recorded in the Holy Bible): Joh 17:17,
"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." (NIV)
Sincerely, James
**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads
***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post.
)))
|
