"replenish" What Does It Mean In Genesis?

[mfbukowski]

Sorry, my genes compel me to say this.  They are yelling at me to not remain silent, and react this way every time people conflate science and religion.

 

Religious discourse has nothing to do with scientific discourse.  It is like confusing French Impressionism with basketball.  Totally different language games.

 

Phew.

 

Thanks.  My genes are happier now.

 

Let the discussion resume.   What is the best pointillistic technique to use on a basketball anyway?

[Robert F. Smith]

.........................................................................................  

That step -- from the inert to the lively -- seems to be the real

missing link in life origins controversy. A crystal can replicate

and extend its structure, but it is not life. Complex chemical

chains can be replicated naturally, but are not life. When the

first postulated self-replication occurred, then the precursor

to RNA "came to life."

Sounds like spontaneous generation to me -- though not of

the naive type, that would have flies magically appearing out

of dung heaps, etc.

..........................................................................................

We have not yet had that self-replication you speak of, and we cannot even get it going in the lab.

 

Not only does spontaneous generation not jibe with scientific laws, but the evidence for it is not available in the geologic record -- which is why so many scientists have been opting for transmission (panspermia).

[Robert F. Smith]

RNA in the lab.

SEE http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222162009.htm

 

DNA in the lab.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-life-with-alien-dna-created-in-lab/

 

Abiogenesis in the lab.

SEE http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43971/20544373/Abiogenesis_scientist_wins_Nobel_Prize_for_Medicine.

 

What we still have to determine is exactly how life came about but we are getting a lot closer than most realize.

I think that genetic engineering and the synthesizing of organic molecules is wonderful and very useful, but it does not constitute the creation of self-replicating life.  Once we finally are able to engineer self-replicating life in a lab (and that may take place in this century), we still have not demonstrated that life was spontaneously generated on this planet billions of years ago.  We will have merely affirmed that intelligent design is operative.  We have merely kicked t he chicken & egg question down the road.  That is all.  However, in the process we will have brought forward advanced techniques for curing disease and disabilities, and that is the primary benefit.

[Robert F. Smith]

Evolutionist don't believe in spontaneous generation.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

You failed to read his conclusion #4, "Evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists. However, many have thought that the theory of evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true."

I wholeheartedly agree with that conclusion, as do virtually all evolutionary biologists today.

[thesometimesaint]

Spontaneous generation was disproven centuries ago.  No one that I know of is today is trying to prove it. I never said that we have created self-replicating life. Nor have the links I posted to. What we have done is create its important precursors RNA and DNA in the lab. Whether we will in one year or a hundred years from now really doesn't bother me one way or the other. What does concern me is the wisdom in creating a different life form, from us, that can never be allowed outside of a rigorously controlled lab experiment. 

 

So called Intelligent Design has been thoroughly debunked. Intelligent Design is a philosophy of ignorance.

SEE

SEE

 

The origin of life is called abiogenesis. A related but totally separate field of study. It is actually much closer to chemistry than biology.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

Amazing how that works. Reputable scientists working in one area of science accepting the work of other reputable scientists working in another area of science. Without a deep understanding of how and why science works there will be no more of those great achievements.

[Uncle Dale]

...

What we have done is create its important precursors RNA and DNA in the lab.

 

 

I suppose that "creation scientists" will naturally discount any such lab

experiments -- saying that they occurred over a short period of time;

while evolution theory generally speaks of very slow changes, outside

of any laboratory, taking millions (or billions) or years.

 

Same sort of response as they've given to the e. coli long term

evolution experiment -- which at least demonstrates that natural

selection is not totally mumbo-jumbo inflicted upon us by Lucifer.

 

I'd like to see a series of illustrations (perhaps done as a slide-show)

putting in sequence the major developments required for earth's

naturally occurring organic chemicals of 4 billion years ago, progressing

toward self-replicating "life" or proto-life.

 

Probably that would comprise several dozen "slides," in sequence,

with approximate geological dating attached.

 

It will be that all-important slide pair that I'll want to examine -- the

"before and after" illustrations of molecular chains that are only

replicated by external "natural" means, and those that replicate

themselves, without the aid of external membrane passages, etc.

 

Probably, somebody, somewhere, has already prepared their

concepts, in such a series of pictures. Of "progression" from

lower to higher something-or-another.

 

 

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

I suppose that "creation scientists" will naturally discount any such lab

experiments -- saying that they occurred over a short period of time;

while evolution theory generally speaks of very slow changes, outside

of any laboratory, taking millions (or billions) or years.

Non-biologists typically get this backward, as you do here.

I have met a number of so-called "creation scientists," and they all had PhDs and practiced standard science.  Their assertions about the long periods of time theorized by evolutionists were correct and on target.  Geologists and evolutionists finally realized that that criticism was correct, and that there were no transitional forms, which is why they formulated the theory of rapid change (punctuated equilibria, which did not leave an adequate record in the geologic column).  This realization came along in the 1970s, after your basic schooling was over.  So, don't feel too bad.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probably, somebody, somewhere, has already prepared their

concepts, in such a series of pictures. Of "progression" from

lower to higher something-or-another.

 

 

UD

When I was a young archeology student, I used to see similar illustrations in some of the museums I would visit, and it made logical sense that this unproven progression was true.  I bought into it at a naive level, until I had gotten further training in the sciences, then realizing that evolutionary assumptions did not hold water.  I finally realized that adaptation within a species (which goes on all the time) is not the same as evolution from one species to another.  However, I have friends who believe that evolution is God's method.

[Robert F. Smith]

Spontaneous generation was disproven centuries ago.  No one that I know of is today is trying to prove it.

Nonsense.  This is the grand obsession and objective of evolutionary biology, despite some considerable disappointment along the way.  Intelligent designers like Dr. Szostak will eventually design such self-replicating life, and then try again to find out how it came to be via spontaneous generation.  Hey, sometimes, Philip Szostak even uses the word "design"in his website: http://www.szostakdesign.com/ .

 

I never said that we have created self-replicating life. Nor have the links I posted to. What we have done is create its important precursors RNA and DNA in the lab. Whether we will in one year or a hundred years from now really doesn't bother me one way or the other. What does concern me is the wisdom in creating a different life form, from us, that can never be allowed outside of a rigorously controlled lab experiment.

How naive of you.  Of course it will get out of the lab. 

 

So called Intelligent Design has been thoroughly debunked. Intelligent Design is a philosophy of ignorance.

The only "intelligent design" which anyone has debunked is a straw-man version concocted by those attacking normative religious use of the notion -- which is based on supernatural gods or god (the God of the medieval philosopher-theologians).  Hating intelligent design will not make it go away.

 

.................................................

 

The origin of life is called abiogenesis. A related but totally separate field of study. It is actually much closer to chemistry than biology.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

..........................................................

It is called biochemistry, and is well known.  It (and molecular biology) is indeed the key to intelligent design of self-replicating life in a lab, which is something that scientists are now working on, and on which they will succeed sooner than you think.  However, the technical accomplishment of synthesizing life in a lab is only a first step to proving your heart's desire -- archebiosis.

[Uncle Dale]

Non-biologists typically get this backward, as you do here.

I have met a number of so-called "creation scientists," and they all had PhDs and practiced standard science.

...

 

 

Odd that I do not see much of them in the peer-reviewed literature.

Would you say that degreed scientists who reject natural selection

out of hand constitute more or less than 50% of the total? I know

that numerous Muslim scientists fall into the creationist category;

but, then again, in places like Pakistan, they risk stoning and death

for taking any other stance.

 

I've never been one to insist upon cosmic rays having to do all

the work in propelling biological evolution along its path -- though

they obviously do change things, across the globe, daily.

 

Nor do I reject the possibility of remarkable inductions of exotic

genetics into an existing life-form here and there. Perhaps there

were early instances when parasites became symbiotic and even

integrated into a host.

 

I'm even ready to believe that some odd biological entity could

fly up my nose and influence the genetics of my offspring -- tho

I'd say that would be a very unusual rarity.

 

Some people say that we and chimps had no common ancestor.

You may be one of those -- or, you may be on the same side of

the fence that I'm on. I'm not that evangelical about these things.

 

But, if you're one of those guys who claims that the entirely of

the Greenland icecap was laid down within a few thousand years;

or that the Kali Gandaki Valley was carved out in a lifetime --

you leave me in your dust.

 

An interesting valley -- that one. Ammonites up along the peaks

that would excite the envy of Alexander the Great's helmet-maker,

and a river very, very, very far down from those snowy peaks. A

river that is still eroding away, and himals that are still being

pushed up by the force of that wicked Indian continental plate.

 

But I groped my way up as high as I could go without oxygen,

and gazed down into those Nepalese depths -- far deeper than

the Grand Canyon. A eureka moment that -- gazing downward,

and realizing that a river had cut its way from one side of the

world's highest range, down into its deepest gorge, all the way 

to the other -- from Tibet to India. Not carved out in a lifetime --

nor in a million lifetimes. Not named by any Father Adam.

 

But -- once those ammonite fossils were living things, squirming

about in the mud that had the ill-luck to be lying in the path of

that ever-grinding Indian plate. Primitive things, living in a time

when the ancestors of my own DNA were equally primitive

(though not destined to be mollusks) -- lifted by rocky waves

to Everest heights -- awaiting my own pilgrimage up to those

frigid, airless summits. To be re-united. My archaic relatives

and my living self. All made out of star-stuff from super-novae

of a galaxy-age ago.

 

Evolutionist?

 

Yeah. Call me that.

The description fits.

 

UD

Edited February 13, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Uncle Dale]

Odd...

the world's highest range

...

 

 

Never made it over to Everest base camp -- but lived close

enough to have done the trek, if I'd have cared to. Flew

so close to the great black monolith, a few times, that I feared

the Royal Nepal Air twin-engines would slam me into it.

 

And -- from those lofty heights, to the rim of the deepest

spot on the planet -- years in the Marianas -- an afternoon

sailboat ride away from the waters over "the trench."

 

And -- from there, to what is really the world's tallest

summit (if measured from top to bottom). Hilo - paradise.

 

Kinda makes me wonder what comes next.

 

And kinda makes me reassured to know that my own

transferrous atoms will eventually end up in other

living entities -- as much at home there as in me.

 

"I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments,

prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality

you and I may share, my Lolita."

  -- Vladimir Nabokov

 

http://www.erbzine.com/mag11/1109.html

 

UD

Edited February 13, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Robert F. Smith]

Odd that I do not see much of them in the peer-reviewed literature.

Would you say that degreed scientists who reject natural selection

out of hand constitute more or less than 50% of the total? I know

that numerous Muslim scientists fall into the creationist category;

but, then again, in places like Pakistan, they risk stoning and death

for taking any other stance.

This comes from the same mindset which sincerely believes that, if there was serious science available to defend the Book of Mormon, it would definitely appear in peer reviewed journals.  People who believe that probably also believe in the tooth fairy, and know nothing of publication in non-Mormon peer reviewed journals.

Creationism is actually not scientifically defensible, except in the creationist critique of archebiosis and of evolutionary biology.  Both creationism and evolutionary biology are built on a foundation of sand.

 

...................................................................

But, if you're one of those guys who claims that the entirely of

the Greenland icecap was laid down within a few thousand years;

or that the Kali Gandaki Valley was carved out in a lifetime --

you leave me in your dust.

................................................................................

I hold no brief for silly assertions that everything happened rapidly, and am not sure why you make such an assumption.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[thesometimesaint]

This comes from the same mindset which sincerely believes that, if there was serious science available to defend the Book of Mormon, it would definitely appear in peer reviewed journals.  People who believe that probably also believe in the tooth fairy, and know nothing of publication in non-Mormon peer reviewed journals.

Creationism is actually not scientifically defensible, except in the creationist critique of archebiosis and of evolutionary biology.  Both creationism and evolutionary biology are built on a foundation of sand.

 

I hold no brief for silly assertions that everything happened rapidly, and am not sure why you make such an assumption.

 

I've never claimed that science supports the Truth Claims of any religious book including The Book of Mormon. At best science can make Fact Claims of any religious book plausible or disprove those claims. IE; Pi is not exactly equal to three, and the earth is not flat.

 

Archebiosis(Spontaneous Generation) was disproven centuries ago.

 

Evolutionary Theory has withstood every serious challenge against it for over the last 150 years.

 

Rapidly is a relative term. From what we obverse simple single cell organisms appeared relatively early in earth long history between 500 million to a Billion years after creation. Complex multicellular organisms are a relatively recent creation

SEE http://www.wired.com/2014/08/where-animals-come-from/

Edited February 13, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

I hold no brief for silly assertions that everything happened rapidly, and am not sure why you make such an assumption.

 

Well, practically every person I converse with who professes

that our human race is descended from Adam, places his

advent upon this planet within the past 10,000 years. So,

at least since his day and age things (like geological events)

must happen "rapidly" to conform to chronological limits.

 

When do LDS General Authorities say that the continents

were parted? When did Peleg live? And what was Father

Adam's approximate birthdate?

 

Folks here never seem to want to attach anything like

investigatable dating to these seminal events.

 

Where do you stand?

 

UD

[Stone holm]

Not exactly certain how a simple post asking about the meaning of "replenish" morphed into another debate about evolution. The debate I intended to spark is whether God got it right the first time, or whether he pushed the reset button, which would be implied if we use the modern English meaning of the word. But since we are here, it does seem very unlikely that a literal interpretation to Genesis can stand unless we believe in a relatively small Garden of Eden which continues in existence for a very long time. A theory, I do not have a problem with so long as we also go with Brigham Young's suggestion the Earth was in fact terra formed in some manner both inside and outside the Garden. This only leaves the slightly vexing question of whether the Neanderthals with whom our ancestors mated had souls. If they didn't then what of us, and if they did then what of the Hominids who evolved outside the Garden?

[ERayR]

Well, practically every person I converse with who professes

that our human race is descended from Adam, places his

advent upon this planet within the past 10,000 years.

 

There are those of us who believe differently.

[Uncle Dale]

There are those of us who believe differently.

 

Yes, I encountered such friends among the members of the church

of my youth. Generally speaking, they would say that we can count

back from Jesus to Abraham fairly accurately, in terms of actual

years -- but that the Great and Abominable Church screwed up the

chronology from Abraham back to Noah, and from Noah back to Enoch.

 

Unfortunately these were the same folks who told me that the JST Bible

was accurate and reliable. So, how they explained Joseph Smith failing to

correct the errors in the genealogical count, I could never understand.

 

Using some genetic back-tracking, the experts tell me that all the people

on the planet can be traced back to a single male, who lived many, many

thousands of years ago -- and then, an equally long period from his days

on earth, our race can be traced back to a primal "Eve."

 

How that sort of scientific information can be correlated with a fundamentalist,

literalist view of the biblical texts, I do not know. Roman Catholics whose work

I have read, say that it really doesn't matter when Adam lived -- or whether

there was an Adam -- or whether much of Genesis is real pre-history. Those

folks manage to retain their faith -- but it is not the dogma of their ancestors.

 

As for me, I'm more interested in hearing different believer's viewpoints, than

I am in determining which is the "one true human origins account."

 

I learn a little more each time I re-visit this topic.

 

As for replenish -- I think we exhausted that topic -- at least for the non-literalists.

 

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

This comes from the same mindset which sincerely believes that, if there was serious science available to defend the Book of Mormon, it would definitely appear in peer reviewed journals.  People who believe that probably also believe in the tooth fairy, and know nothing of publication in non-Mormon peer reviewed journals.

Creationism is actually not scientifically defensible, except in the creationist critique of archebiosis and of evolutionary biology.  Both creationism and evolutionary biology are built on a foundation of sand.

 

I hold no brief for silly assertions that everything happened rapidly, and am not sure why you make such an assumption.

I've never claimed that science supports the Truth Claims of any religious book including The Book of Mormon. At best science can make Fact Claims of any religious book plausible or disprove those claims. IE; Pi is not exactly equal to three, and the earth is not flat.

 

Archebiosis(Spontaneous Generation) was disproven centuries ago.

 

Evolutionary Theory has withstood every serious challenge against it for over the last 150 years.

 

Rapidly is a relative term. From what we obverse simple single cell organisms appeared relatively early in earth long history between 500 million to a Billion years after creation. Complex multicellular organisms are a relatively recent creation

SEE http://www.wired.com/2014/08/where-animals-come-from/

Not sure why you are replying to my comments to Dale, but you are welcome to do so, as long as you don't take them personally:

Your odd reaction that "I've never claimed that science supports the Truth Claims of any religious book including The Book of Mormon. " is certainly out of place and a non-sequitur.  You do realize that I was speaking to Dale about lack of peer reviewed articles in science journals on the Book of Mormon, and not not responding to you.  My response to Dale was factual and logical, your response completely off base.

 

As to your false claim on spontaneous generation having been disproven centuries ago, well, that is just silly.  Perhaps you had a jocular conversation with a paleontologist and you are passing the joke along to me now.  Certainly evolutionary biologists cannot agree with you, which is why they have spent so much effort in my lifetime trying to prove archebiosis.

 

You might want to take up your absurd claim about evolutionary biology and about geologic time with the work of Niles Eldredge and the late Stephen Jay Gould, authors of the theory of punctuated equilibrium.  Why do you think that they did that?  Do you have a clue?  Rapid change is the answer to long periods of stasis (lack of change and lack of fossil transitional forms).

Edited February 14, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Uncle Dale]

... peer reviewed articles in science journals on the Book of Mormon...

 

 

hmmmm... some critics would say that Bruce Schaalje's

rebuttal of elements of the Spalding authorship claims

were well presented in Literary and Linguistic Computing.

Dame Statistics may not be precisely "Science," but she is

a welcome and necessary handmaiden.

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

Nonsense.  This is the grand obsession and objective of evolutionary biology, despite some considerable disappointment along the way.  Intelligent designers like Dr. Szostak will eventually design such self-replicating life, and then try again to find out how it came to be via spontaneous generation.  Hey, sometimes, Philip Szostak even uses the word "design"in his website: http://www.szostakdesign.com/ .

 

How naive of you.  Of course it will get out of the lab. 

 

The only "intelligent design" which anyone has debunked is a straw-man version concocted by those attacking normative religious use of the notion -- which is based on supernatural gods or god (the God of the medieval philosopher-theologians).  Hating intelligent design will not make it go away.

 

It is called biochemistry, and is well known.  It (and molecular biology) is indeed the key to intelligent design of self-replicating life in a lab, which is something that scientists are now working on, and on which they will succeed sooner than you think.  However, the technical accomplishment of synthesizing life in a lab is only a first step to proving your heart's desire -- archebiosis.

The way I understand it is that the problem as always, lies in the definitions, in this case the troublesome words are  "intelligent" and "design".

 

I would think that these are problems because the word "design" itself implies a definable purpose in creating the design, and so one would have to interpret the data to intentionally read that into the observations.  In short, one would be begging the question and coming up with a circular argument that for example the human eye must have evolved with a "purpose" simply because of its complexity. 

 

To explain it's complexity one infers that it must have been designed with a purpose, but that conclusion tacitly already assumes that complexity itself IS "purpose" and that one cannot have complexity WITHOUT purpose.  So the argument becomes circular.

 

Others might see the complexity as coming from the function of the eye itself- the survival need for binocular vision in grabbing fruit from trees while swinging through them, etc. and therefore see no other need to postulate the undefinable idea of "purpose" as an explanation.

 

I mean without a religious interpretation, what is the "purpose" of humanity?  We dominate the planet, are horrible to the ecology, and cause extinctions of other species etc.   We could be seen as a sort of parasite that should be eliminated, and indeed some have believed things like that.  We ourselves are the creators of "purpose" when we make a piece of flint into an arrowhead, but without postulating God from the beginning as an assumption, what would the purpose of mankind be?

 

So I can see why the atheistic scientists would be totally unconvinced by any arguments from "intelligent design" as a supposedly "scientific" argument.  Based on observation and experiment alone, I do not see how anyone could possibly conclude that mankind has a "purpose"

 

I see that paralleling the way I see the historicity of the scriptures- no amount of objective observation or historical fact-finding could ever prove that the man Jesus of Nazareth atoned for our sins.  That is a religious belief, not subject to observation or experiment except in an Alma 32 kind of way.  Dig up the cross and carbon date it.  Carbon date the shroud.  Even run DNA tests on it (we are fantasizing here to make a point) and show it has Hebrew DNA from the first century on it.  Go back in a time machine and take videos.   None of that would prove that Jesus took away our sins.   Nothing can prove that mankind has a "purpose"

 

Personally of course, I believe that the earth HAS a purpose because God has a purpose, and that was creating a world for us upon which he could "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man".  I have no problem with that and indeed I affirm it and have a testimony that it is true.  That is a religious belief.

 

But for the life of me, I cannot see how it could possibly be a scientific argument, seen by atheists as a reasonable way of seeing things.  Do I have that right, or am I missing something?

Edited February 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

...

what would the purpose of mankind be?

 

 

 

Well, as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin once said...

(oops too much religion there)

 

I mean, as Herodotus wrote...

(nah, still metaphysical admixtures)

 

In the Talmud...

(stop me, before I err again!)

 

UD

[Stone holm]

As I recall there are various shades and colors of evolutionists,

but at least some of them would accept the explanation that

self-replicating complex chemical substances can evolve from

ancestral substances replicated mechanically.

That step -- from the inert to the lively -- seems to be the real

missing link in life origins controversy. A crystal can replicate

and extend its structure, but it is not life. Complex chemical

chains can be replicated naturally, but are not life. When the

first postulated self-replication occurred, then the precursor

to RNA "came to life."

Sounds like spontaneous generation to me -- though not of

the naive type, that would have flies magically appearing out

of dung heaps, etc.

The Muslims get around this problem by having human

life originate in a clot of blood -- where the blood comes from

in the first place does not matter to the true believer.

UD

Have never heard the clot of blood argument, where can I find out more about it on the net?

[Uncle Dale]

Have never heard the clot of blood argument, where can I find out more about it on the net?

 

Oh, any decent commentary on Sura 96 in the Holy Qur'an

ought to delve into this stuff -- (whether in the case of an

individual's conception, or Adam's genesis)...

 

Proclaim!

In the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, who created man,

out of a mere clot of congealed blood.

(Sura 96:1-2)

[mfbukowski]

Well, as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin once said...

(oops too much religion there)

 

I mean, as Herodotus wrote...

(nah, still metaphysical admixtures)

 

In the Talmud...

(stop me, before I err again!)

 

UD

Yeah that's the problem.  Intelligent design implies a design.  That means a purpose, a teleology of the universe.  And that is just a circular argument for getting God in there.  It's begging the question.  I can't see it any other way at the moment.

[mfbukowski]

Have never heard the clot of blood argument, where can I find out more about it on the net?

I don't think it's really an argument, more of a primitive observation based probably on observing miscarriages, etc.  An early embryo can be seen as a "clot of blood" which grows into a person.

[Uncle Dale]

Yeah that's the problem.  Intelligent design implies a design.  That means a purpose, a teleology of the universe.  And that is just a circular argument for getting God in there.  It's begging the question.  I can't see it any other way at the moment.

 

You could go the Matrix movies route -- where we ourselves

have designed what SEEMS to be the world. Throw in a

few mega-computers, and galaxy-sized memory storage, and

the Motherboard will know when even a single sparrow falls.

 

And yet, we designed it.

 

Doesn't solve the riddle of who/what designed us. Designing

ourselves does not allow Neo to awaken and save Sion.

 

Best answer I can find -- it's turtles, all the way down...

 

 

UD

Edited February 14, 2015 by Uncle Dale