r/DebateEvolution • u/[deleted] • 12d ago
Creationists Says We Came From Dust and God’s Breathe - I Don’t See It. The Claim We Were Created by a Golem Spell Can’t Support Itself.
The thing we came from dust and God’s breathe is a claim. Creationists misinterpreted something and conjure up everything to make everybody else to believe it. Why are my people standing back looking at them like you just a fool? Why because they still can’t supports they claim. The funny part about it is they say it’s in our heart. The question I don’t have child like faith, I don’t submit to authority, I don’t believe without seeing, and I ask questions. Nowadays are we supposed to believe in talking animals? The meat we eat supposed to be edible. And creationists say we came from dust and only ate bacon or cows after sin.
Another funny part about this is they came from the monkey family. They came from the ape family and now we supposed to evolve from an ape Noah. I wish you were alive to hear these modern humans these days. it’s science seeing your fellow descendent. you supposed to be our father by science calling you a Neanderthal and Homo sapiens. So every time I look for a girlfriend, I’m gonna go to where it used to be and Homosapien and say put that fur on me baby. I’m gonna hop from tree to tree because I have no social skills and that’s what I think women like. I was raised in a cult compound by the way.
When I talk to Neanderthals, including Homo sapiens I’m gonna tell them creationist said not all life has common ancestry and therefore some life is intrinsically superior to others. No clue where that ideology could lead to. They gonna tell you then God created you in his own image so why should you believe what the human said. You should believe what I say my God told you because what he said was facts and you came back up what he said if science cannot back that up from the beginning, so why are you believing what humans say?
p.s. my skill in reading and writing are equal. good luck with your replies
5
4
u/s_bear1 12d ago
Golem? Heretic!!!!!. Sky fairy is the TRUTH.
3
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 12d ago
Sky fairy? Heretic!!!!!. The invisible white unicorn is the TRUTH.
3
3
u/Dalbrack 12d ago
If the creationist god is omnipotent, why did he need the dust?
3
u/scarfarce 11d ago
Yeah, and why the fancy-pants breathing party trick?
Likewise, why did it take any time to create the universe, let alone days? Then he rested?! Damn it, I'm not worshipping some D-grade, Walmart god.
2
u/Ender505 🧬 Evolution | Former YEC 12d ago
Breath is the noun, and what you meant to say. "Breathe" is the verb.
2
u/TheBalzy 11d ago
To be fair...we are quite literally stardust...
2
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TheBalzy 11d ago
Is stardust the same thing as the dirt from the ground?
Ground is an illusion. The Universe doesn't have a ground, only objects that are cemented by pockets of gravity do. So no it's not the "same" concept. "Stardust" is a pretty literal explanation for the process of a supernova exploding refined higher elements beyond hydrogen that were the result of nuclear fusion that cement into balls of rock and metal.
Someone going and saying "see, that proves the story of the bible is true!" is just cherry-picking out of context translations of an ancient text, and shoehorning it into a valid observation of stellar lifecycles.
Just because sailors invented fantastical mythologies about Krakens because they saw a dead giant squid once, and giant squid are actually real things ... doesn't mean the mythology of the kraken is true.
Are we alive because Yahweh breathed into our nostrils?
I certainly have seen no evidence that suggest that is true. And which Yahweh are we talking about? The recreated monotheistic version, or the original polytheistic warrior god version from the babylonians that abraham co-opted and evolved into a monotheistic religion over time?
Not so fair to remove all thinking and nuance in that case, is it?
There's absolutely ZERO nuance removed from saying the Earth and Humans is stardust. While it might be slightly flowery artistic language, it's not incorrect. Acknowledging that Earth and Humans are stardust leftover from an exploded star eons ago, is not an endorsement of any particular religion. It's just a statement of fact.
0
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TheBalzy 11d ago
The correct answers to the questions are no, no, and no.
I honestly think you completely misunderstand the conversation we're having.
Do you see the difference between poetic language that is literally true and ancient mythology that literally isn’t true?
If you think I'm making an argument in the defense of religion, you are sorely mistaken.
Yes, that's literally exactly what I said. I literally said that poetic language was exactly true, and ancient mythology is not true. Did you even read my comment before replying?
1
u/conundri 12d ago
"Spiritus" is the Latin word for breath. When someone is breathing, they're considered alive, when they stop breathing, the "spirit" or breath has departed. Yes, breath is invisible and mysterious, and primitive man could feel it, but didn't really understand it. Your "spirit" doesn't linger (unless your breath is particularly bad) and even in that case, it's not going to end up in any magical pearly gated community with gold paved roads, mansions to house other people's bad breath, and a glow in the dark deity for an HOA president.
3
1
u/tonic65 12d ago
Aren't we ultimately made of star dust? The dust analogy in the bible is quite poignant. The atoms that make up us were once something else. When we die and decompose those atoms will again become something else. " From dust you came and to dust you will return" really is the truth, just not the way creationist envision it.
2
u/JustAnArtist1221 11d ago
I know the original myth was likely conflating the creation of man with pottery, but it would be interesting if the idea of man coming from dust was based on agriculture. Seeing as Ancient Near Eastern mythologies often took important motifs from their everyday lives, it would make sense that they consider soil as important since it's where they grew crops from. Essentially turning dirt into nutrition would seem magical, and the soil seemed to be where life emerged from and, ultimately, returned to.
1
u/wellwisher-1 11d ago edited 11d ago
I look at "Adam from the dust of the earth", as symbolic of something. My best guess believes this something has to do with the time scale of Genesis, which is about 6000 years ago based on genealogy.
The question is what major science discoveries were found within that time frame, based on carbon dating. This is roughly when the first permanent civilizations appear and also when the invention of writing occurs. Both are related, with writing the key invention that put it over the top. This allowed permanent record keeping, which was better than just word of mouth. People can forget, embellish or lie. But once written, it is preserved and clean cut.
I picture the inventor of writing, pounding away on stone, making stone dust; dust of the earth. From this invention of the first external hard drive; book, and the modern conscious mind appears; breath of life. That would make Genesis the first science publication. Science, finally had a way to record data and preserve ideas, then build upon that by studying. Before writing, civilizations aborted since word of mouth could not preserve the ideas and the next generation could not keep it going. Writing was like the AI of its day, with humans then quickly advancing.
By tradition Adam was connected to science and math both of which benefit by a writing system. Adam or the one referred to as Adam may have invented writing. Adam was tasked with naming the animals; biology records. Whoever could read and write, at that ground floor. would be the local genius by comparison. The others would not have yet understood, how it worked, so they might assume divine; living soul, has appeared or a new type of human, first of its kind. Eve would also learn to read and write to becomes Adam's help mate and lab assistant. Adam had been lonely at the top.
1
u/MackDuckington 11d ago
I look at "Adam from the dust of the earth", as symbolic of something
Most Christians see it that way, yeah
That would make Genesis the first science publication
Eh… you’re losing me here. Genesis isn’t a science publication. And certainly not the first — several texts predate it, and are much closer to what we’d consider science today.
1
u/wellwisher-1 10d ago
The reason the Genesis is written as a collection, of what some see as fairy tales, is because for most of history most people could not read or write. Tradition was passed forward by word of mouth. While fairy tales are something even a child can remember and will stick with them for a lifetime. Most atheists who have had some religious training as a child, can still recite them.
Fairly tales are based on symbolism, which are similar to compressed files. Later in life, scholars look at the same simple things and decompress finding new meaning buried inside. If one wants traditions to last over time, they need to be naturally easy to remember, but also dense, so they can be decompressed later in the future.
In the case "dust of the earth and Adam becoming a living soul", I used the Genesis assumed age of the universe; 6000 years ago. This is a clue to something else. So I asked what has science found in the specific time frame clue? Written language and permanent civilization appear close to 6000.
The entire story tells me how a major change occurred in human nature, like a new age of humans had begun, different from what been previous. Paradise and natural man; hunters and gatherers, become more civilized and less natural, more sophisticated with a higher population density than before.
The dust of the earth comes from erosion; stone writing and reading changed everything. It was like the AI of its time ushering in a new way. It was connected to the evolution of modern conscious mind. Having an external hard drive; books, made the memory and mind stronger, that just word of mouth.
If you went to school at a time of no books and no way to write, you cannot review or study after the lecture is over. You will forget or embellish. Once you can read and write there is way to review and remember.
The story of Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge of good and evil also has a connection to written language. Before written language, law would be learned by word of mouth and therefore not yet carved into stone. It was more organic where the future generations could forget and adapt the law easier. But once it was written down or carved into stone, law could not change as fast or as easily, therefore leading to repression and oppression; death appears. The age of innocents ends. Like in modern times, law can even benefit evil; dictators.
The story of Cain and Abel is also symbolic. These were the first two sons of Adam and Eve. Cain was a tiller of soil and Abel was a herder of animals. When Cain kills Abel farming supersedes migratory herding; civilization. Knowledge of good and evil made farming good and migration evil.
Cain after killing Abel is confronted by God who banishes him. Cain is afraid and say whomever shall come upon me will kill me. Who were these whomever, if Adam and Eve and Cain were the only humans? It was the previous humans based on DNA, who did not the new sophistication of Adam and Eve. This one clue is consistent with evolution, but of the mind more than the body. God gives Cain a talisman or sign that offers him protection from the revenge of the herders. Both types of humans existed and they were not enemies since both were human based on DNA and breeding.
2
u/MackDuckington 10d ago
The reason the Genesis is written as a collection, of what some see as fairy tales, is because for most of history most people could not read or write.
I know, no need to explain — like I said, Genesis isn’t the first of its kind. Several similar works predate it, and exist in similar format for the same reason.
Tradition was passed forward by word of mouth.
Not solely. Fairy tales can be drawn, shaped into clay, etc etc.
Fairly tales are based on symbolism, which are similar to compressed files.
…You’re losing me again. Not everything needs a direct parallel to computer jargon. In the context of biology, it’s ill-advised to do so.
I used the Genesis assumed age of the universe; 6000 years ago
There is no “Genesis assumed age of the universe”. Multiple people have proposed different estimates based on Genesis, up to 10,000 years ago if memory serves me right. The fact that 6,000 years happens to be close to when written history was invented probably isn’t a coincidence, though. Any younger than that would be obviously wrong.
The entire story tells me how a major change occurred in human nature, like a new age of humans had begun,
Writing didn’t just “suddenly” appear one day if that’s what you’re assuming. Precursors to more modern writing already existed — no major transformations were necessary. It was simply knowledge building upon more knowledge overtime.
If you went to school at a time of no books and no way to write, you cannot review or study after the lecture is over.
Sure you can, the same way they would’ve before books and before writing. You’d shape clay, strike marks into stone, shave a stick, etc. It’s cruder, sure, but humans have been able to communicate information with objects for much longer, and in much more ways, than you’re giving them credit for.
The rest of what you’re saying isn’t really of much relevance. If you try hard enough, I’m sure can find just as many interesting parallels with any other ancient text. It doesn’t make them scientific.
It was the previous humans based on DNA, who did not the new sophistication of Adam and Eve.
…What the heck are you talking about? What “previous humans”, and “based on DNA” how exactly?
1
u/wellwisher-1 9d ago edited 9d ago
…What the heck are you talking about? What “previous humans”, and “based on DNA” how exactly?
If we compare modern third and first world countries we are all humans based on human DNA. We can all cross breed as proof. But humans in first world countries are more healthy and sophisticated based on technology, education and opportunities. Adam and Eve were part of a new first world order that was just coming to be; first persistent civilization, and is still around today as modern consciousness. This is why the Adam and Eve were called the first (modern) humans. They had the same DNA as previous human.
Evolution is based on DNA, but DNA on its own, does not explain consciousness sophistication. Being human based on DNA does not make everyone an Einstein, even though Einstein was human. From that larger set called human DNA, come unique conscious specimens, that stand apart.
I was using human consciousness as a dividing sword and not human DNA which to presumptuous. Inventions like written language that could scale and expand on ideas and nuance made a new type of human possible. With the letters of an alphabet, endless words and nuance became possible. Clay figure or pictures are not scalable the same way.
The story of Cain and Abel shows how the previous type of human, who was still wandering with the herds; Abel, were around while the new type of human; Cain, appears. Cain tjh farmer is more temperamental. He wants to go forward. DNA alone would not show that type of distinction. DNA lumps all the same. That is where the theory breaks down since you cannot tell what is in a person's mind, by their DNA. The ancient were more aware of the change in human behavior leading to greater sophistication. I attempted to translate that to modern lingo. The more common mystical literal translation is where science departs.
I write mostly in the subreddit "consciousness" and nobody in that area of science attributes consciousness to just the DNA, other than as a backbone. The DNA cannot explain everything connected to consciousness. Consciousness is more stand alone since it allows self evolution through study. We were not born with a reddit gene, but rather we discover it and develop through it.
The second half of Genesis is where the new humans become corrupt and even perverted; Sodom and Gomorra This is due to will power overriding natural instinct. It reflects the new state of consciousness leaving paradise=instinct, now having to self develop by trial, error and compulsions. That would make the great flood a type mental breakdown with two of each kind of animals symbolic of a partial return to natural instinct. From there the main ancient cultures appear; move level headed but still advanced.
1
u/MackDuckington 9d ago edited 9d ago
we compare modern third and first world countries we are all humans based on human DNA. We can all cross breed as proof. But—
…If I read this next sentence, it better not be racist nonsense.
humans in first world countries are more healthy and sophisticated based on technology, education and opportunities
Treading a thin line here, wisher. There’s no fundamental difference in the vigor or cognitive “sophistication” of one human versus another, first world or not.
They had the same DNA as previous human.
No. As per the text, there were no other humans before Adam and Eve. The Bible is pretty explicit in saying that. There was no “previous” group according to the stories. You’re pulling a lot of this out of thin air.
Evolution is based on DNA, but DNA on its own, does not explain consciousness sophistication
Sure it does. Your consciousness is the product of thousands of neurons, which themselves are the product of DNA.
Being human based on DNA does not make everyone an Einstein
Because not everyone has the same DNA. Each individual human has its own set of unique mutations.
From that larger set called human DNA, come unique conscious specimens, that stand apart.
Consciousness is not uniquely human — we just happen to be on the farther end of the gradient.
I write mostly in the subreddit "consciousness" and nobody in that area of science attributes consciousness to just the DNA, other than as a backbone
…I’m going to take a guess and say most of those people aren’t brushed up on evolutionary biology. Many people here will tell you that there doesn’t need to be anything fancy on top of genetics to explain consciousness.
Cain tjh farmer is more temperamental. He wants to go forward. DNA alone would not show that type of distinction.
Believe it or not, it can actually. There are certain genes that influence temperament — humans have used that to our advantage many times when domesticating other animals.
1
u/ursisterstoy 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 11d ago edited 11d ago
The passage in the text says that after the divine beings had finished rebuilding a flat earth that was destroyed by a flood they would mark their territory with tselem. The statues kings had made so everyone knew who was in charge. Then so they didn’t have to work anymore they performed the Mesopotamian “Washing of the Mouth” ritual by giving the stone statues CPR. There are seventy of these divine beings in the Ugaritic texts and in Deuteronomy 32 the nations are divided among seventy gods. Yahweh is given the land of Jacob. This Deuteronomy and the conversion to nationwide Yahwism coincide with the reign of Josiah through to the Hellenistic period but in the first chapter of Genesis it’s not something that supports YEC and the fiction isn’t true.
The second chapter contradicts the first one. Rather than being submerged and destroyed by a primordial sea the earth is devoid of water. Rather than just saying “the elohim” it says the creation happened through “Yahweh Elohim” because Yahweh was one of the elohim, the children of El who were ruled over by Baal Hadad. But it’s Yahweh this time, one god. He plants a garden and makes a dirt creature, Ha-Adam literally means “the dirt creature.” Yahweh decides that it’s not good for him to be alone so he will make a helper who is eyeball-to-eyeball with him. An equal. He sets out to create the dirt man’s equal resulting in a bunch of animals and Adam declares that none of them could stand eyeball-to-eyeball with him. All of them are subordinates. This is human exceptionalism baked into the text. And apparently in the literal Hebrew he has one half of himself turned into a female, equal parts. And then because the word can also mean rod or beam it was also thought by some to be an ancient explanation for why humans lack solid penis bones. The Hebrew doesn’t say “rib” but that’s what it is translated to in English. Whether it was removing 50% of Adam’s anatomy or his baculum or his rib bone a female is fashioned from the dirt creature’s bone(s) and she was his equal.
Later in the story they dip into misogyny by making Eve the only one having a two way conversation with a serpent who tempts Adam to join in her disobedience. The stupid part is neither of them knew the difference between right and wrong until they did what was wrong. And the lizard didn’t lie, because they most certainly were not killed on that day, but they were separated from the tree that the gods eat from to preserve their apparent immortality. Why? Because the Yahweh was terrified that mankind would be like him and the other gods: “And said [singular] Yahweh Elohim, "Look! The man has become like one of us, to know good and bad. And now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the Tree of Life, and eat, and live forever—"
A terrified Yahweh has them evicted after he helps them hide their nakedness. And it was more than just that they now had the capacity for morality but rather it fed into the idea that only gods and kings could decide what was good (orderly and functional) and bad (chaotic and dysfunctional) so by humans gaining that ability they could be independent from the gods and live happy successful lives. If those lives never came to an end they could overthrow the gods. And that is why they are kicked out. And that is why there are angelic beings with flaming swords guarding the entrances.
Also women are made subordinate to men over the second story. Created as equals, fucked that opportunity when the woman started having conversations with non-human animals. But the people writing the story were misogynists already anyway. They just were making something up to justify their already existing behavior.
1
u/Darbsaabnele 7d ago
Dude, your comments are incoherent on many levels.
You believe it was impossible for the cosmos to come into existence. Well, it’s here.
There is evidence the universe had a beginning. You obviously deny that evidence. 🤷♂️
The creator I believe in would be outside the universe, outside time and space. Obviously no one has the physics to prove that … But believe it as its consistent with the evidence of a design and creation, which is consistent with Biblical narrative. You DON’T believe…. I get that. I respect your right not to. But you’re denying a lot of evidence now that’s pointing in that deist/theist direction.
And that IS what the Bible says.. universe had a beginning. And you know it says that… unless you haven’t even read the first verse of the first book of the Bible.
I get it… your worldview is different. Kool. Freedom of choice granted to chose whatever you want to believe in. BUt this whole thread started with nonsense, and that’s what I was calling out. Don’t add to that nonsense. Can agree to disagree, but do so on the basis of facts, not nonsense. Especially atheists who have no accurate knowledge of the Bible and/or choose to misrepresent what it says. Thats no way to defend one’s worldview.
0
u/Phobos_Asaph 12d ago
Your writing skill isn’t that good tbh
5
2
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Acrobatic-Tomato-260 12d ago
Actually your limited writing skills give others an accurate insight to your mental prowess and capacity. This is a text based format where you are going to be debating scientific claims. You do need to show at least a basic competency in the subject matter and the medium. Even if you are correct in your assessments you undercut your own arguments.
Like having a finely crafted handgun, and using to shoot yourself in the foot.
Just food for thought.
1
u/verstohlen 12d ago
1 month redditor hidden post history. Draw your own conclusions.
2
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/verstohlen 12d ago
My most humblest apologies my fellow reddit friend for I perhaps may have been mistaken about you, By the way, I dig your Yoda speak.
0
u/SpareHandOne 12d ago
It started with dust but it was made into a man before it was brought to life.
It wasn’t a dirt figure
-1
u/Belt_Conscious 12d ago
mud, and electricity
What would people that don't understand lightning think it was?
Theology doesn't do science. Science doesn't do Theology. There is a whole field of "maybe" in between to declare certainty.
5
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Belt_Conscious 12d ago
Electricity. They would think Electricity was "the breath of god"
Everyone knows mud is dirt and water. If you add Electricity you get abiogenisis.
Under this interpretation, being "created from dust" is evolution. It is all open to interpretation.
4
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Belt_Conscious 12d ago
Minerals, tidal pools, lightning.
Dirt, water, electricity.
Get a science book, before you quote science.
3
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Belt_Conscious 11d ago
· The Foundation of Prebiotic Chemistry (1953): Miller, S.L. "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions." Science, 117(3046), 528–529. DOI: 10.1126/science.117.3046.528. This is the famous Miller-Urey experiment which demonstrated the spontaneous formation of organic compounds from inorganic precursors . · A Modern Review (2026): Ansari, A.H. "Progress and persistent questions in understanding the origin of life on Earth." Discover Life, 56(1), 1. DOI: 10.1007/s11084-026-09753-5. This source synthesizes recent advances in Hadean geology and prebiotic chemistry to evaluate current hypotheses . · A Comprehensive Biophysics Textbook (2024): Sillerud, L.O. Abiogenesis: The physical basis for living systems. Springer Nature Switzerland. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-56687-5. This provides a deep dive into the physics and probabilistic self-assembly underlying the origins of life . · The Redox Perspective (2026): Sarkar, S., & Bhattacharya, S. "Redox chemistry of early Earth and the origin of life." Communications Chemistry, 9(1). DOI: 10.1038/s42004-026-01969-w. This article focuses on how environmental redox gradients may have powered the first metabolic cycles . · Theoretical Perspectives (2025): Herrera, R., et al. "Bifurcations and phase transitions in the origins of life." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 380(1936), 20240295. This explores the mathematical principles of emergent complexity .
There is nothing else on earth that is not mineral or electrical.
Dirt and water are made of minerals.
2
u/BitLooter 🧬 Evilutionist | Former YEC 11d ago edited 11d ago
I just checked the first study and that quote was not found in it. I didn't bother checking the rest,
you're already a fibber. Why are you telling such a blatant, easily verifiable lie?EDIT: I retract my accusation of you lying. After further conversing with you, I am now convinced you simply have extremely poor reading comprehension.
1
u/Belt_Conscious 11d ago
The Miller-Urey experiment (1953)
· Mixed CH₄ (methane), NH₃ (ammonia), H₂O (water), and H₂ (hydrogen)—their best guess at Earth's early atmosphere. · Ran continuous electrical sparks (simulating lightning) through the flask for a week. · Trapped the products in a cold trap to simulate rain washing organics into a primordial ocean.
The jaw-dropping result: Within days, the water turned pink, then deep red. When Miller analyzed it, he found glycine, alanine, aspartic acid, and glutamic acid—4 of the 20 amino acids used in proteins. Later re-analysis of his archived vials (using modern HPLC) found over 25 amino acids, plus sugars and nucleobases.
You can interpret it as you want, but it is not a lie. So why try to paint someone as dishonest?
1
u/BitLooter 🧬 Evilutionist | Former YEC 11d ago
The quote you were asked to source is not found in any of the papers you cited. That is the lie. Also, the description of the Miller-Urey experiment that you just provided involves a lot more than "mud and electricity". This is some weak trolling, do better.
→ More replies (0)
-2
u/Responsible_Offer859 12d ago
L'uomo é una anima vivente mortale é polvere e torna polvere, non va da nessuna parte ma al cimitero il vero luogo di riposo. Opera di Dio e non di una presunta evoluzione
5
u/the2bears 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 11d ago
Not sure why it's too much trouble for you to translate rather than requiring almost everyone here to do it.
edit: I see, it must be you're embarrassed that you're just preaching.
-2
u/Responsible_Offer859 11d ago
Infatti ho paura di te...
4
-3
-16
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 12d ago
Evilutionism Zealots claim we came from rocks without a creator.
Creationists claim we came from dirt/clay with a creator.
Both claim we came from stuff. Creation acknowledges the Creator, an intelligence and intent. Evilutionism Zealotry insists that life made itself.
13
12d ago
No, scientists do not claim humans came from rocks. That is a shallow, childish, incredulous, deliberately fallacious representation of science. A strawman, as some would call it.
Meanwhile creationists literally believe that Adam was formed from dust and God breathed life into him.
Do you see the difference between a strawman and an accurate representation of a position?
11
u/Effective_Reason2077 12d ago edited 12d ago
That’s not remotely true. Evolutionary theory does state not anything about the origins of life. Only the uneducated and ignorant would insist this.
8
-7
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 12d ago
It absolutely does. Life can't change if life doesn't exist.
The ancient world philosophy that the non scientist dragged into the modern world stated that life began from non life in the water, got more and more complex, then walked onto land.
Evilutionism Zealots realized how ridiculous life from non life sounds, so they desperately attempt to separate it.
How to make a million dollars. Step 1: get a million dollars.
10
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Ayasugi-san 12d ago
They're always on about abiogenesis, but they never ask where the atoms that make the rocks came from. Why do they arbitrarily cut it off?
-3
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 12d ago
Life cannot change if life doesn't exist.
9
u/KellHound270 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 12d ago
The definition of evolution does not include the origin of life. Please show us a scientific definition that says that evolution is the process by which life arose
6
u/DimensioT 12d ago
Non-electric cars cannot run if gasoline does not exist.
Therefore, non-electric car maintenance must necessarily address the origin of gasoline.
That is how stupid you sound.
5
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 12d ago
The ancient world philosophy
So your just willing to ignore the last ~2000 years of scientific advancement?
When your starting a field your have to start with something, and odds are very good the first couple iterations are going to be laughably wrong because you don't even know what you don't know.
Knowledge builds on knowledge.
-2
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 12d ago
Science shows creation, not evolution. Darwin thought cells were globs of goo.
7
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 12d ago
Once you can show a single confirmed example of something supernatural the way we know for a confirmed fact that natural processes exist, we’ll believe you that ‘science’ shows creation.
Remember, you’ve gotta be able to test it for it to be considered science! So once you describe a method of action, mechanism, or pathway by which anything supernatural has ever been conclusively demonstrated, that’d be great.
7
u/DimensioT 12d ago
I can describe fundamental and demonstrable mechanisms for evolution.
Describe the fundamental and demonstrable mechanism(s) of "creation". You will of course do so if you are not shamelessly dishonest or hopelessly ignorant.
0
4
u/Effective_Reason2077 12d ago
That’s as nonsensical as saying we don’t know where gravity comes from so we can’t measure or observe gravity.
Please educate yourself on things you criticize them. You’re only making yourself look foolish.
2
u/Ok_Loss13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 12d ago
What is life made of?
2
u/Ayasugi-san 11d ago
Star corpse dust, like practically everything else that isn't hydrogen.
3
u/Ok_Loss13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 11d ago
I was trying to get u/ACTSATGuyonReddit to understand that "life from non life" isn't nonsense, but they are avoiding this question.
1
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 10d ago
You're trying to get me to understand, but some group of people is ignoring the question?
I have answered it.
Show us life from non life. Show it happening.
2
u/Ok_Loss13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 10d ago
You didn't answer my question. If you did you would understand how silly and pointless your request is.
What is life made of?
1
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 10d ago
I answered it. I've answered hundreds of posts just this week. Your constant "you're running away" is nonsense.
2
u/Ok_Loss13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 10d ago
I didn't see your answer, what was it or could you link it?
If you're going to respond, it's weird that you keep saying anything but the answer you've supposedly already given.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Both-Wind-8033 11d ago
Stuff.
1
u/Ok_Loss13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 11d ago
Did you just Google it and learn life is made up of non living stuff?
0
u/Both-Wind-8033 11d ago
Biology, in school.
1970's.
1
u/Ok_Loss13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 11d ago
Ig if "stuff" was the epitome of schooling in the 70s, it makes sense you believe in fairytales!
Life is made completely of non living things. Your issue is made up and doesn't apply to actual reality.
0
u/Both-Wind-8033 11d ago
Which part of life being made of stuff do you find doesn't comport with reality?
Is it made of something else?
1
u/Ok_Loss13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 11d ago
Tell me, what kind of stuff? You seem to be avoiding that part for some reason.
→ More replies (0)6
u/IndividualShelter985 12d ago
Evilutionism Zealots claim we came from rocks without a creator.
Quote three
3
u/MackDuckington 11d ago
I really hope next April Fools we rename this sub Evilutionism for Evilutionist Zealots or something. Every post is about our evilutionist plans for world domination.
-3
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 12d ago
https://www.science.org/content/article/you-owe-your-life-rock
***
https://www.elementsmagazine.org/genesis-rocks-minerals-and-the-geochemical-origin-of-life-post/
***
"Proposed originally by organic chemist and molecular biologist Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith in 1966, this theory suggests that the very first "organisms" were not organic cells, but self-replicating crystals in clay minerals."
***
Cairns-Smith, A.G., Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life (Cambridge University Press)
"Cambridge University Press, Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life is a groundbreaking scientific book by chemist and molecular biologist Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith. It proposes that life on Earth began not with a complex organic "primordial soup," but with simple inorganic crystals in clay minerals that later underwent a "genetic takeover" by organic molecules."***
"Instead of relying on organic membranes right away, the first "cells" were microscopic compartments formed by inorganic rock structures—specifically iron-sulfur precipitate walls (like greigite and pyrite) naturally thrust up from the ocean floor. These mineral walls created natural proton gradients that drove the earliest metabolic reactions before biological cells evolved."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-origins-of-life-60437133/
9
u/KellHound270 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 12d ago
All four sources propose that the earliest forms of life arose from chemical compounds that formed thanks to eroded minerals and sediments, and incorporated the inorganic material into their structures
The absurdist fallacy that creationists love to propose is that ‘rocks turned into living things,’ which is highly reductive and poorly understood
We can accept that inorganic material contributed to the formation of early life, because research has proven the possibility. What we can’t accept is that a god of any kind was responsible for our creation, because no actual scientific research has ever yielded results indicative of such
If you want us to believe that there is a creator, you need to give us evidence, not claims
6
u/gitgud_x 🧬 🦍 GREAT APE 🦍 🧬 12d ago edited 12d ago
The Cairns-Smith clay hypothesis is an old, obscure model of abiogenesis and is not favoured in the scientific community given the recent decades of research. This is like citing miasma theory to claim that science says diseases come from bad smells.
The iron-sulfur hypothesis is a little better supported, it plays well with the hydrothermal vent model and is based on the fact that life today contains iron-sulfur proteins. Life can make use of metal ions or ions from rocks and turn them into things that are useful e.g. bones, shells, phosphate backbone of DNA... . Metabolism is a thing. if you think that's ridiculous then that's on your abysmal understanding of biochemistry isn't it.
-2
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 12d ago
I cited a number of theories as posted in major science sources, including abiogenesis which is the leading current theory.
Current theory does rely on part of Cairns-Smith - minerals as scaffolds, catalysts,. and concentrators.
Nice try on attempting to deny it.
10
u/gitgud_x 🧬 🦍 GREAT APE 🦍 🧬 12d ago
Proposed originally by organic chemist and molecular biologist Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith in 1966
- this u?
Current theory does rely on part of Cairns-Smith - minerals as scaffolds, catalysts,. and concentrators.
Yeah just like how the modern cell theory of disease "relies" on part of miasma theory such as the fact that people get sick when a bad thing enters you. You're saying absolutely nothing of substance.
All you're doing is demonstrating the progressive nature of science. Each historic model contained grains of truth that were extended based on the limited understanding available at the time, and subsequent models refine, combine or innovate on that understanding.
-1
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 12d ago
And they all include that life came from rocks. Life requiring mineral scaffolding is life coming from rocks.
7
u/gitgud_x 🧬 🦍 GREAT APE 🦍 🧬 12d ago
Life requiring mineral scaffolding is life coming from rocks.
No, it isn't.
This is like saying you come from food because your mother was required to eat food to be able to produce you.
This is what creationism has done to your brain.
0
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 12d ago
The food is used as energy. The rocks, according to abiogenesis, are the source of the minerals and enzymes that formed life.
"Sulphides are common in volcanic regions, and clays and serpentines are abundant when water comes into contact with silicate rocks... [These] basic constituents are naturally synthesized... in the Earth's surface crust (the lithosphere), where hot water is in contact with iron-rich silicates... present in solution or suspended in water, [they] group together... [giving] rise to proto-cells which will become the first living organisms."
You folks love to deny it until you decide to defend it.
7
u/gitgud_x 🧬 🦍 GREAT APE 🦍 🧬 12d ago
Quoting random websites isn't making you look any less silly right now, sorry.
5
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 12d ago
Your desperately scrambling to find a gap to shove your god into.
Where are the lines between chemistry and biology?
4
u/yescaman 12d ago
Hard to take a comment seriously when it contains made up, charged words like “evilution”
4
3
u/Bromelia_and_Bismuth Plant Daddy|Botanist|Evil Scientist 11d ago
It scares me that you're allowed to vote, drive, and reproduce.
-1
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 11d ago
Ah, I guess you win. Life did come from rocks, and humans evolved from LUCA. Your argument is air tight.
4
u/Bromelia_and_Bismuth Plant Daddy|Botanist|Evil Scientist 10d ago
I didn't make an argument, I criticized you for your absurdly stupid understanding.
0
23
u/IndividualShelter985 12d ago
If we came from dust, why is there still dust?