A simple boundary, easily enough distinguished
IamJoseph said:
No - I am not presuming or asuming - it is the given text in Genesis, which I agree with because I have thought about it and examined its scientific veracity - which does not have to agree with ToE to be scientific.
And yet, when it comes to the simple task of citing that text in Genesis, and citing its corresponding scientific outcomes, you seem to refuse. Or else you can't. Which is it?
I gave the example of a car and other constructs - they cannot perform untill they are in a completed form and then after they are ignited to come on/become alive.
Demonstrate where in nature a car occurs without human intervention. Don't get me wrong, I accept that life is necessary for certain outcomes in nature. I mean, certainly, bird droppings can be used to make gunpowder, but if those compounds could exist without birds shitting all over the place, they would. Nature is not extraneous. Neither is God, if you insist on believing in that.
You appreciate the example of the car because it suits
your needs, not any specific need of nature.
I see no alternative to this - even if one holds that primitive life evolved to complex life - the primitive life still had to be in a complete form as a life form, but is yet not alive - untill they are ignited.
Exactly. Therein lies the hitch:
You see no alternative to this. Are you omniscient? Are you perfect? Is your perception a result of your perfection?
It is like a new born baby - it has to be ignited by a mild slap; and speech - it has to be ignited by a parent - else it does not happen. Similarly, this planet had to ignite the lives which emerged with the cycles required to sustain life as living.
And of the
millions of planets in this Universe, sir, only a few meet the criteria for spawning the kind of life we recognize. Our distance from the sun. The diameter and composition of this planet, which corresponds integrally to its gravitational acceleration. This occurs while a G2 star operates in its main sequence.
Ask yourself a fun theoretical question. You know those grey aliens? With the big eyes and the long, thin fingers? Look into the folklore about them. Speculate as to the nature of their home world. It's a geologically active planet, with a slightly higher gravitational acceleration. And a star that tends a little bluer than the sun. How do I know this? Because the long fingers are suited to geological youth—sharp, craggy features. The bone structure and agility are indicative of higher gravity. The big, black eyes suggest a dim spectrum shifted toward the ultraviolet. And here's the kicker:
They don't exist. Where the hell did this myth come from?
Still, though, such an exercise reminds you that life, as we understand it, exists according to its environment. Once upon a time, Aristotle explained that rocks fall because they have "falling properties". Do you get it? Water evaporates because of environmental factors, not because a drop of water on the picnic table has "evaporating properties". If it was cloudy and the air around it colder, it would
freeze instead. What exists in the Universe is a result of the properties of the Universe, not vice-versa. Life, at this level of examination, is no different from the raindrop stilled on the tabletop. Its existence and behavior is subject to its environment, not because God decrees that it should freeze or evaporate. The result
does not require God.
You give us nothing to work with but untestable, mythical pronouncements.
This is not science.
I'm sorry that science is so damn boring. It's not mystical, I admit. And, yes, that kills some of the fascination for some of us. I'm a fucking
mystic, Joseph,
not a scientist. But even I can perceive the boundaries 'twixt the two.
And you need to learn that difference.
If we can help you achieve that, great. If not, I'm sorry. Maybe it's just God's will.
Tell us how to test Genesis. Or else give it up, man. Your current approach doesn't work.