The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'll just plug away, knowing that I've left the evidence for any who are interested. [...] I'm not here to demonstrate any scientific or theological skills, just to point people to the Truth.

Well, you're taking part in a debate, and that's all about speaking with other people, engaging with them, that kind of thing.

Simply including lots of links that you don't summarize yourself, and few if any people read, is a bit like being at a dinner party and trying to tell jokes by pointing at a jokebook on your shelf.

btw, "Truth" comes across a bit less pretentiously if you spell it with a small 't'

AtomicHorror

Continuing our discussion from http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055365903...

santing wrote: »

Wow - and I thought the odds of one evolved eye would already be extremely low. Imagine having to evolve several different eyes independently!

Improbable is exactly what it is. But two to three such evolutions in 3 billion years pretty much fits that, wouldn't you say? The thing is, that there's no obvious reason for the differences between the three major "designs". If the various "kinds" of vertebrates are indeed unrelated as suggested by Creationism, then why give all of these disparate species the same basic eye design, only then to give completely different designs to arbitrary, apparently also non-interrelated groups of species?

This sort of apparent paradox is extremely common in the "design" of species. Typically, such strange Designer behaviour excused as the unknowable will of said designer. Saying "it's a mystery" and not pursing the question further is not a very scientific way to proceed.

santing wrote: »

Yes I did, and googled for more articles on eye evolution. I am not convinced though.

Take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html too. There's tons of very readable information on that site in general, actually. Well worth a browse through.

santing

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Continuing our discussion from http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055365903...
Improbable is exactly what it is. But two to three such evolutions in 3 billion years pretty much fits that, wouldn't you say? The thing is, that there's no obvious reason for the differences between the three major "designs". If the various "kinds" of vertebrates are indeed unrelated as suggested by Creationism, then why give all of these disparate species the same basic eye design, only then to give completely different designs to arbitrary, apparently also non-interrelated groups of species?

Common, you pose us with a loose / loose scenario. If the design is related you say: "See it all evolved from one source" and if it is unrelated you point out that that is an indication that there is no Designer ...

However, as a firm believer in the Creator I can charge back so that we are at least in a stale mate situation. A designer doesn't always need to apply the same design (boring) but can use His creativity.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This sort of apparent paradox is extremely common in the "design" of species.

I think the paradox is bigger for the evolutionist than for the creationist. Reading through articles on the evolution of the eye, I came across a lot of "probable" "Apparently" etc. Statements that some functionality of the eye could evolve before the brain would be ready to interpret it - which of course removes the engine from the changes: there is no benefit, so no natural selction here.

Nope, my best explanations stays the same. In the beginning God created heavan and earth.

5uspect

Interesting paper on the genetics of the evolution of the eye attached. Unless you have access to the scientific literature through a University or other such institution you won't have much luck finding primary material by simply googling.

Consequently you'll find layman's descriptions rather than cold hard science.

(winzipped due to size limitations)

If you need any more I'll do my best to provide them.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

However, as a firm believer in the Creator I can charge back so that we are at least in a stale mate situation. A designer doesn't always need to apply the same design (boring) but can use His creativity.

But that doesn't make much sense, particularly when he gives better eyes to animals other than humans.

The Creationist argument is that life looks like it was designed by a single designer. That doesn't hold when you actually look at a life. It doesn't look designed by a single designer, it looks like a bit higgly piggildy mess.

Creationists can argue that life doesn't look like it was designed by a single designer because the designer actually decided to really mix things up a lot ("use His creativity") for apparently no reason or obvious purpose, but that still is an admission that life doesn't look like it was designed.

This problem for Creationism is present even if one ignores evolution all together. You don't need to say life evolved to say that life does not suggest that it was designed. Creationists often push the idea that if life didn't evolve it must have been created by God. That simply because there is no serious alternative scientific theory other than evolution, but that doesn't mean that Creationism becomes an alternative simply because of lack of other options.

Even if evolution is completely wrong life doesn't suggest it was designed.

santing wrote: »

I think the paradox is bigger for the evolutionist than for the creationist.

Not really. Evolution explains quite nicely why there would be multiple designs of eyes on Earth. That is not a paradox for evolution, in fact it would be troubling for evolution is there was only one design of eye on Earth, since the common ancestors of all life would not have been evolved enough to have had eyes.

This not only fits evolution, evolution predicts this.

On the other hand it is a big problem for Creationism, and needs some form of explanation along the life of God got creative to explain it way, which ends up being some what of a non-explanation

It is though the advantage of dealing with an unknown, untestable, all powerful supernatural being, you can say God got creative and there is absolutely no way of testing if that is true or not. So you can keep saying it and there is no way to demonstrate you are wrong. But equally there is no way to demonstrate you are right. You are just guessing over something that can not be known or tested. So it has zero value in terms of science and knowledge

santing wrote: »

Statements that some functionality of the eye could evolve before the brain would be ready to interpret it - which of course removes the engine from the changes: there is no benefit, so no natural selction here.

You don't need a brain to get benefit from photosensitive cells, there are plenty of examples of animals that do so with a simple nervous system set up.

This is the advantage of the eye as an example of evolution, there are examples of animals that have basic oversensitivity but have never developed much beyond that, and examples of animals that have it and only evolved a bit beyond it etc etc. So it is possible to look at animals today and see a kind of line of how the eye could have evolved, from animals with basic photosensitive cells right up to complex eyes.

Dawkins details this in some what mind numbing detail in his books on the subject.

santing wrote: »

Nope, my best explanations stays the same. In the beginning God created heavan and earth.

That doesn't actually explain anything. What did he do, how did he do it, what happened when he did it?

God did it is not actually an answer, it is simply an excuse to stop asking the question.

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

Common, you pose us with a loose / loose scenario. If the design is related you say: "See it all evolved from one source" and if it is unrelated you point out that that is an indication that there is no Designer ...

No, what I am wondering is why there should be arbitrary differences and similarities in something such as eye design if they are indeed designed. Creationists have not been able to put forward a logical purpose in such design differences. All species are related, but some are related to us only from before the evolution of the eye, hence the difference or even lack of eyes completely.

santing wrote: »

However, as a firm believer in the Creator I can charge back so that we are at least in a stale mate situation. A designer doesn't always need to apply the same design (boring) but can use His creativity.

So why did he? Why did he show such a lack of imagination when designing vertebrates, even to the point of making mistakes?

santing wrote: »

I think the paradox is bigger for the evolutionist than for the creationist. Reading through articles on the evolution of the eye, I came across a lot of "probable" "Apparently" etc. Statements that some functionality of the eye could evolve before the brain would be ready to interpret it - which of course removes the engine from the changes: there is no benefit, so no natural selction here.

There's no paradox. Firstly, a brain is not needed for simple photoreception. Bacteria can do it. As for complex eyes, the brain as a pliable organ that interprets input evolved prior to the eye as we know it. Once the eye evolved in an organism, so long as it had a nervous connection to the brain, it was immediately able to interpret that input. We can see how this works even now. A child born blind will not develop a coherent sight interpretive structure in their brains despite a nervous connection between the two. This is because, without input that structure does not develop. You've got a short developmental time within which to correct this before the brain "solidifies" if you like. Experimental treatments designed to restore sight to the born blind in late childhood/adulthood tend to fail because their brains are unable to interpret the incoming information and can no longer restructure to do so.

Mutations such as eye formation always occur in the germ line, in the unborn.

If we engineered a connected, input-receiving organ of some other type (let's give them x-ray eyes!) into a person prior to birth, we would expect the brain to develop interpretive structures for that also. Effectively giving the person a sixth sense. Try putting that into an adult and it won't be easy at all.

santing wrote: »

Nope, my best explanations stays the same. In the beginning God created heavan and earth.

So why does the Earth appear by every measure we can make to be 4.5 billion years old? Why does the universe appear to be 14 billion years old? Why does all life have genetic similarities that would be negligibly unlikely unless they were related? Why does a vast, multi-layered fossil record show us countless species that do not appear in the very oldest of human texts? Species which seem to be mixtures of the ones that exist today, that show us every conceivable stage in the development of a variety of structures from nothing to their current state? Why do the earliest human remains found appear to be hundreds of thousands of years old? Why do we find remains of a second intelligent species that lived next to humans for thousands of years and yet which appears in no record of Creation?

In short, why did your creator make his world appear to have come about without any intelligent intervention?

As Wicknit says, "God did it" is a question-ending answer.

Mark Hamill

santing wrote: »

Statements that some functionality of the eye could evolve before the brain would be ready to interpret it - which of course removes the engine from the changes: there is no benefit, so no natural selction here.

Jellyfish have "eyes" of a sort but no brains. From Wikipedia:
"Jellyfish lack basic sensory organs and a brain, but their nervous systems and rhopalia allow them to perceive stimuli, such as light and odour, and respond quickly."

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As Wicknit says, "God did it" is a question-ending answer.

Wicknit? ... have you been talking to PDN? :pac:

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Wicknit ... have you been talking to PDN? :pac:

I liked the name. It has new information, so I'm going to run with it :pac:

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I liked the name. It has new information, so I'm going to run with it :pac:

LOL ... very true, damn this information theory :pac:

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Well, you're taking part in a debate, and that's all about speaking with other people, engaging with them, that kind of thing.

Simply including lots of links that you don't summarize yourself, and few if any people read, is a bit like being at a dinner party and trying to tell jokes by pointing at a jokebook on your shelf.

btw, "Truth" comes across a bit less pretentiously if you spell it with a small 't'

That people don't read them is a comment on their credibility, not that of the links. Few of the links have been extensive, so time cannot be a factor. If they are as juvenile as alleged, they would be even easier to scan. The answer is in the psychological nervousness of the non-reader - they fear (perhaps subconsciously) to be confronted by the truth.

The Truth I was refering to was not some mere scientific fact, but the knowledge of God. That warrants a capital anytime.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

That people don't read them is a comment on their credibility, not that of the links. Few of the links have been extensive, so time cannot be a factor. If they are as juvenile as alleged, they would be even easier to scan. The answer is in the psychological nervousness of the non-reader - they fear (perhaps subconsciously) to be confronted by the truth.

The Truth I was refering to was not some mere scientific fact, but the knowledge of God. That warrants a capital anytime.

I think Robin's point stands. We are here to debate with each other. By all means use sources to support a point that you are making, but short answers followed by a link to an essay written by someone else don't deserve many points.

I can't speak for the others but I feel no fear in reading these articles you link to. I do at times feel a deep frustration at the simple-minded and often dismissive content, just as anyone would when confronted flat denialism. But there is nothing in there that challenges me in the intellectual or scientific sense.

Galvasean

I'm just fed up of reading articles by people with no experience in the field of palaeontology trying to dismiss the latest fossil finds when they clearly have no clue of what they are on about.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Indeed, but the perfect condition would only have existed in the short time in Eden, a totally stable enviroment. Since then our genes have been subject to disorder like everything else.

No environment is totally stable. Unless you can point to proof of the garden of Eden, it's location, composition, well then all of this is just speculation.

I don't have to prove the existence of the garden - it is a given for my argument's starting point.

I asked you how you can discern that my motive is mere defiance of God rather than the pursuit of a truth that you have not grasped. You have not told me how you would make the distinction. Rather you have simply suggested, once again, that defiance of God is my motive. It's a cop out, and it is beneath you.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes, that is an alternative to a straight defiance of God. It is listed in the Bible as the method the devil uses to con people who would be unsettled by an obvious defiance of God. It is called delusion - any lie that is designed to replace the Truth in men's minds. Anything that assures them there is a better explanation than that given in God's word.

As to motivation, at bottom it is still defiance of God, but self-deluding oneself that one is being an honest pursuer of truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I would put it rather that some atheists are as outwardly moral as any theist. I'm sure you would admit that many however do not feel constrained to observe many of the Christian mores - regarding sexual purity, sobriety, worship of God, etc. Those areas provide enough sin to warrant a conscience-stifling denial of God, even if it means accepting there is no real meaning in life.

Again, I asked a question you have not answered. Is there evidence to support the notion that we whom you claim are acting purely in defiance of God are in fact less moral than those that follow Him? I would suggest that the sins you list here are committed quite readily by a great many supposed Christians. You would consider them not to be "real" Christians, and I see that point, but they keep God in their lives and still do as they please. Why do we need further justification of our immorality, assuming it exists, than they do?

You don't. They share with you - indeed excel you - in an underlying antipathy to God. Hypocrisy stinks, and the more outwardly religious one is while being godless within, the greater the stink.

And I ask, why is it that the majority of the most highly educated people in the world, those that occupy the highest ranks of intelligence and reason, just so happen to constitute the group that you assume must be acting merely in defiance of God? Why are so few scientists willing to support your literal interpretation of scripture? Is this some profession-specific curse of wickedness? Something that naturally comes with knowledge of nature?

Yes - Pride.

Why is it that the only people denying what those wicked folk claim to be true, also just happen to be biblical literalists? These seem like very curious demographics.

Yes, they will seem strange to you. Here's what the Bible says about it:
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:


“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is the interpretations of these disciplines that they question, not the discipline itself. If the interpretations are wrong - fitted to the frame of evolution - then of course creationism won't fit.
Nonsense. The age of the earth was considered by geologists to be in the billions of years long prior to Darwin. In fact, when Lord Kelvin estimated the world to be at most 400 million years old, it was not the followers of evolution who took issue with this, but the geologists. They based their own estimates not on the time that life needed to form, for at that time the great variety of life was not well understood, but from their basic knowledge of rock formation and stratigraphy.

Darwin's own son George supported Kelvin's estimates, even providing his own calculations suggesting an age of less than 100 million years. Amongst the biologists, only Huxley and his followers defied the physicists regarding the age of the Earth. The physicists and geologists had no interest in the nascent theory of evolution or what Huxley claimed it required. They had their own war. It was not until the end of the 19th century and the discovery of radioactivity that the dispute was put to rest. It was realised that Kelvin's calculations assumed a world and a sun cooling continuously, when in fact radioactive decay would produce yet more heat and push back the earliest formation time for the Earth.

With this new knowledge and the related emergence of radiometric dating the true extent of life's history was realised. It was greater even than Huxley might have imagined. The fossil record was not mere millions of years old, but stretched back to greater than 1 billion years.

We now know that the earliest fossils are at least twice that age, and there is debate over fossils formations from closer to 3 billion years ago.

I agree with all that, but don't see your point. Are you saying evolutionists could have lived with a 6000yr old earth, and accepted the current dating merely on its merits? I think you are really saying they would have accepted any dating that fitted their theory - 100M or 4.5B.

Radiometric dating has its own assumptions, which creationists challenge and have shown not to be inviolable.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what evidence would cause the creationists to alter their starting assumption that the Bible is irrefutably, entirely and perfectly correct? This is a paradox.

None. For that is not the starting assumption of their scientific theory. It is part of their theology.

Without a falsifiable starting assumption, there is no science.

They start with a perfect, mature creation. You start with the first self-replicating life. Neither you nor they have to account for how that came about for the respective theory to stand.

For the theory to make sense in the Big Picture, an explanation of origins would be required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Maybe, maybe not. Strange that all creationist material gets the same treatment.
I will qualify my statement then. All of the creationist material that I have read has been un-scientific, illogical and naive. I will give you "poorly written", as some of it is just fine. Some of it is quite wonderfully bad though.

Thanks for the concession.:D But you need to read more or listen to some of the creationist vs evolutionist debates on DVD. Didn't seem to me that the evolutionists came through unmarked - to say the least!

Have to close for tonight - I'll respond to the rest of your post tomorrow, DV.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't have to prove the existence of the garden - it is a given for my argument's starting point.

And that is why you shall never convert us. If you proved something like that we would have no choice but to side with you immediately.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

The answer is in the psychological nervousness of the non-reader - they fear (perhaps subconsciously) to be confronted by the truth.

Er, no -- having read quite a few of them, they're all pretty much the same: lousy grasp of detail, ideology overriding facts where necessary, low-brow presentation, strange leaps of logic and endless repetition of the same tired phrases. There's only so many times that one can provide the same rebuttals before the realization creeps up that one is wasting one's time.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Truth I was refering to was not some mere scientific fact, but the knowledge of God. That warrants a capital anytime.

Much and all as you believe yourself to be the creator's local rep, your self-belief would seem less sweeping if you stuck to delivering "truth" with a small 't'

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

That people don't read them is a comment on their credibility, not that of the links.

No, it is a comment on how people don't like following links to large articles that often don't end up actually answering the original question. They will put it with a few times but after the 100 time most people call a time out on that type of nonsense.

If you yourself cannot summarise the answer (feel free to link to the article afterwards) it simply leads to the conclusion that you don't yourself understand the answer. And if you don't understand the answer how can you expect us to trust that the answer is actually in the paper you link to. Many times I've come back empty handed from an article you have said the answer is contained in

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't have to prove the existence of the garden - it is a given for my argument's starting point.

If you can't even verify your starting point, what hope does the rest of your argument have. I was under the impression that you were willing to have a logical debate.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes, that is an alternative to a straight defiance of God. It is listed in the Bible as the method the devil uses to con people who would be unsettled by an obvious defiance of God. It is called delusion - any lie that is designed to replace the Truth in men's minds. Anything that assures them there is a better explanation than that given in God's word.

As to motivation, at bottom it is still defiance of God, but self-deluding oneself that one is being an honest pursuer of truth.

The above is largely the same as the "defiance of God" motive. The only difference being the followers' ignorance of the underlying cause. It's a real convenient one too, another cop out. You can ascribe "delusion" to any and all who appear to you subjectively to be contradicting scripture. My question was how you can tell that these are the motives of those who accept the theory of Evolution?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You don't. They share with you - indeed excel you - in an underlying antipathy to God. Hypocrisy stinks, and the more outwardly religious one is while being godless within, the greater the stink.

We don't require the justification of atheism for our hypothetical immorality? You've just contradicted yourself. And again, you assume an antipathy towards God, but how do you know this to be the case?

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror: Why are so few scientists willing to support your literal interpretation of scripture? Is this some profession-specific curse of wickedness? Something that naturally comes with knowledge of nature?

Yes - Pride.

Considered a negative characteristic by Christians. Certainly many scientists have it. But that is no cause for self delusion or mindless herd behaviour. Pride did not save Franz Gall's theories of phrenology from being debunked, nor Maxwell's luminiferous aether. Even Isaac Newton, one of the giants of physics, was eventually cast down by the constant self-analysis of the scientific community. Like Newton, Darwin was found lacking too. We discarded that of his work which did not fit observations in order to formulate the modern synthesis. And the names of those who debunked the others are remembered well too. Einstein put an end to Newtonian gravity as anything more than an approximation. Were evolution found wholly lacking, there would be no shortage of scientists ready to tear it down and place their own mark in scientific history.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, they will seem strange to you. Here's what the Bible says about it:
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:


“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”

Uhuh. So, essentially a broad anti-intellectual message? "Don't mind those clever types telling you that you're wrong. They're the ones who are wrong. Trust me, God told me that."

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree with all that, but don't see your point. Are you saying evolutionists could have lived with a 6000yr old earth, and accepted the current dating merely on its merits?

No, my point was that your assertion that science is merely trying to fit into the framework of evolution is incorrect. Much of the framework came first. Evolution just happened to fit neatly into it. Every day new observations are made which continue to fit into the theory of evolution without any difficulty. Next to some fields in science, we biologists have a pretty easy job. Most of the really big questions have been answered.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think you are really saying they would have accepted any dating that fitted their theory - 100M or 4.5B.

Nope. When Darwin wrote Origin, the time needed for evolution from a common ancestor was not known. Nor was it clear that a single common ancestor was actually the starting point. Later that notion became a widely accepted hypothesis that could only be tested once the nature of the gene were discovered. The fossil record soon demonstrated that a whole lot of time was actually needed. This was not news to geologists, but it was to biologists and physicists. Later, when Watson and Crick identified DNA as the genetic material, the single origin hypothesis could finally be tested. It held.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Radiometric dating has its own assumptions, which creationists challenge and have shown not to be inviolable.

Radiometric dating encompasses more than a dozen techniques, each best suited to differing time scales which overlap. All are known to be error prone. However, as with the Egyptian chronology, only the creationist posit that these errors are on a scale grand enough to allow the world to be less than 10,000 years old. This fits in with what is known of tectonics, erosion, and all the general rules of geologists, who had long held that the world was billions of years old before the physicists came along and said "oops, actually you were right".

wolfsbane wrote: »

None. For that is not the starting assumption of their scientific theory. It is part of their theology.

Let me get this straight. The "hypothesis" of creationism is not that Genesis is literally true? Do they not hold that any evidence which appears to contradict scripture cannot be true?

wolfsbane wrote: »

They start with a perfect, mature creation. You start with the first self-replicating life. Neither you nor they have to account for how that came about for the respective theory to stand.

Evolution stands without an explanation of the origin of life. But creationism is not equivalent to the theory of evolution in terms of scope. Creationism is equivalent in scope to the Standard Model of Physics, Inflation Theory, Stellar and Planetary Formation Theory, Geology, the putative Origin of Life hypotheses and Evolution. Essentially, it holds itself as an alternative to all of the natural sciences combined. Science, as a whole framework, is obligated to ask questions as long as there are questions to be asked. Creationism will stop asking when someone says "God did it".

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for the concession.:D But you need to read more or listen to some of the creationist vs evolutionist debates on DVD. Didn't seem to me that the evolutionists came through unmarked - to say the least!

Would those DVD debates happen to be published by creationists?

sdep

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think Robin's point stands. We are here to debate with each other. By all means use sources to support a point that you are making, but short answers followed by a link to an essay written by someone else don't deserve many points.

Agreed. I welcome succinct summary statements with substantiating links to the primary research papers on which they are founded. However, just responding to an argument with, "Have a look at this," and a link to a poorly written review really is no substitute.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I can't speak for the others but I feel no fear in reading these articles you link to. I do at times feel a deep frustration at the simple-minded and often dismissive content, just as anyone would when confronted flat denialism. But there is nothing in there that challenges me in the intellectual or scientific sense.

They often bear a striking resemblance to Communist propaganda - all those boringly formulaic denunciations of evolution and attacks on 'evolutionists'; sometimes you wonder if they aren't pure parody. In rarely citing primary literature, but instead using textbooks - often antiquated - and popular science magazines, they also fall way below the standards of scientific review papers. If the authors want to be taken seriously as scientists, there's no justification for this.

AtomicHorror

From the Dawkins thread:

santing wrote: »

Which is of course nonsense. Abiogenesissets your starting point. If you don't know where to start, you can't really say much for certain about the road taken. So I guess that you would want the same natural principles to apply to abiogenesis as to evolution.

No… the first self-replicating cell, fully formed, is the starting point of evolution. Abiogenesis is not theory, and so it would be unscientific to use it as a starting point. The idea has caught the public imagination, and is often lumped in with evolution, but the two are distinct. You may deny this as much as you like, but in no credible text on evolution will you find the assumption of any specific form of abiogenesis. You may find discussion of the topic, but not acceptance of a given mechanism.

santing wrote: »

The only purpose for which evolution was invented was to get rid of God. If you need Him at the start, it defeats its purpose.

Evolution does not disprove God. It just disproves your rather uninspired version of him. The theory was “invented” merely to explain variation in the species. Something you have yet to explain yourself. Just how did 16,000 “kinds” become hundreds of thousands of species in 4000 years? Why aren’t they still changing at that rate? Why are there no records of species changing at a faster rate than we now observe?

santing wrote: »

AH didn't pointed that out. He pointed out that dead material can be used by life material to amke the life material grow.

You have misunderstood me Santing. My point was that we life forms build our bodies out of lifeless matter. This is very easily proven. What is more, we build entire, independent organisms (our offspring) from lifeless matter. We know every step, every reaction, from the formation of sex cells from accumulated lifeless matter, to the conception of new life, to the recruitment of new materials for the division of that cell into new cells. We have studied and mapped out all of it. There is not one immaterial step. And it all begins with lifeless matter.

santing wrote: »

Dead material never receives life again on its own. I thought Mr. Pasteur had a law around that several centures ago.

Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, also called “common abiogenesis”. The notion that new life could spring from dead matter frequently and reproducibly. That flies, the same flies, could spring from differing piles of dead meat with no reactions nor contamination. He did not disprove any form of abiogenesis currently held as viable hypothesis. Nor did he disprove the notion that we life forms are built from the lifeless fabric of the universe.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
......so out goes all the 'mumbo jumbo' about teaching (Christian) kids about all faiths and letting the kids decide.....
........you say that children can't be expecterd to assess these things....and critical thinking doesn't come until much later!!!!!

AtomicHorror
Let their parents teach them religion as fact if they wish. That has no place in education. Certainly teach children about faiths, what they represent. Education is for teaching facts, as best we know them.

As you have said education should teach the facts…..and it is a fact that there is a considerable body of SCIENTIFIC evidence in support of Special Creation…….and no known mechanism for Abiogenesis.

There is no scientific evidence at all for creation. And abiogenesis is not taught in schools, nor should it be.

J C wrote: »

By all means teach the FACTS…….but spare us and our children the faith-filled, wide-eyed, ever-changing, evolutionary speculations of Atheists trying to bolster their vain hope that God doesn’t exist with various 'Evolutionary Tales'!!!!:eek::)

You assume we wish to destroy God due to delusion or wickedness, but you cannot prove that this is our motive, or that we wish to destroy God at all. And if it is actually not so, then what is our motive? I think you would struggle to find a reason why we would rush to find the world objectively meaningless. But I think from the above we can very clearly see your motive. You fear that your reason will not allow you to accept God. You fear a world in which "truth" is no longer absolute, but as you say "ever-changing" based on the latest knowledge. You are afraid of knowledge.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
Education has no place quashing anyone's faith, but neither should it reinforce faith upon those who are ill-equipped to make rational judgments. When they are ready to make their own choices, the information is there for them to assess.

Your OWN words show the erroneous nature of such a position.
You have just said that “children can't be expected to assess these things....and critical thinking doesn't come until much later.”
So there is a duty upon Christian parents to ensure that their children are given a proper orthodox Christian education…… as well as ensuring that they are also made aware of the latest breakthroughs in Science.

Then teach them. But don't expect the state to make allowances for every last pet faith that comes into existence. Yours is certainly too small to devote schools to. Secular teaching is the only way to be fair, unless you would have your specific faith ignored in favour of others.

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists DON’T advocate the teaching of Creation Science in public school. We don’t wish to force our views on anyone……and especially the children of non-Theist parents!!!!
.....however, such restraint may not be reciprocated.......and very often Christian parents have no choice about what is taught to their children in public school ……....
......but they do have the right, and the obligation, to ensure that their children are taught the facts in relation to Creation Science as well as providing a proper instruction in orthodox Christianity to their children……..and they can do so privately outside of school hours, through their local church.:)

In those contexts, I would have no issue with the teaching of creationism. Since I view all faith as a lie anyway, it would be hypocritical of me to say that parents may tell their children one lie but not another. Santa, God and Creationism. You may have them all in your home, but keep them out of our schools.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
To whom should educators listen? To the many conflicting voices of the faiths or to the unified voices of the academia? Parents may teach their children anything they wish. Outright lies, if that's their desire. But state-run education has a responsibility to follow the academic consensus, be it in the humanities or the sciences.

Educators SHOULD listen to PARENTS whose authority over their children is constitutionally protected!!!!
However, I wouldn’t bank on them all doing so!!!!
You may be correct that some Educators only listen to the so-called ‘academic consensus’ ……..which poromotes the teaching of Atheism’s unfounded 'pet' theory of Materialistic Evolution.

The theory of evolution is founded and proven. The voices of parents are being listened to, which thankfully means that our state is moving towards secular education. The grip of religions on education is slipping, and creationism will find no place there.

J C wrote: »

……so Christian parents could find that their taxes are being used to fund the enforced indoctrination of their children with Atheism/Evolutionism!!!!:eek:

The teaching of evolution has been ongoing for decades. Nobody is complaining. The schools aren't teaching atheism, in fact they've been specifically teaching Christianity that whole time.

J C wrote: »

……anyway, our God reigns……and excellent Christian and Creation Science books and media resources are readily available to Christian parents at minimal cost.

In addition, Christians can undo the damage caused by the teaching of Materialistic Evolutionism to their children in school by bringing them to Creation Science seminars and church-run Bible study groups.:cool:

And yet they can't be bothered. Oh well, better luck in the USA.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
So who do we believe? Islam? Christianity? Hinduism? None has any greater evidence of their truth than any other. Belief in them is a subjective and personal choice.

You are correct that religious belief is a personal matter……

Christians believe on the Lord Jesus Christ because they know that there is none other by whom we may be saved!!!

All of the faiths claim to categorically “know” that they are correct. None of them can prove it, least of all the literalists.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
Oh yes, there's just tons of evidence for the existence of God. So why do you need faith?

There is indeed overwhelming scientific evidence for the existence of God!!!!

Oh no there isn’t. And we return to page one.

J C wrote: »

We DON’T need faith ......to believe in God……..the physical world and all life provides objective evidence that it was created by a God of effectively infinite power and intelligence.
BUT....
We DO need faith ........in Jesus Christ .....in order to be saved!!!!!:D

Well the scientists studying the historical existence of Christ will certainly make that faith a bit easier, even if they can’t spot the miracles. The world provides no evidence of a creator God, but we have no power to rule it out. All that we can be sure of is that if a God exists, he is not the God of a literal genesis.

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
The Universe and all life proclaims that it was created..........and the Evolutionist position that life can arise spontaneously and dragged itself up by its own bootstraps to become man is quite frankly unbelievable!!!!

AtomicHorror
No, you just can't imagine how it might happen, so you are only too delighted to assume that it did not. That's down to two things. Your lack of imagination and your fear of what it means to merely be material.

It seems that NOBODY can IMAGINE how Evolution could occur!!!:)

You can’t imagine the extent of God, nor the mechanism by which He came to be. You can at best approximate. Are you saying that this rules out His existence? The only difficulty we have with evolution is not imagining how it occurred, but imagining the steps in some specific cases. Many such cases have been proclaimed unimaginable and yet we now understand them.

J C wrote: »

………could I gently remind you that the LEADING EVOLUTIONIST, Professor Stephen J Gould ALSO shared the view that we are unable, “even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases”!!!!!

J C, you gently remind us of that very same Professor Gould quote every few pages. It’s in your signature. We are not goldfish. Gould’s opinion is not science. If it were, the inability to imagine a thing does not make it non-existent. How about you find us another Gould quote that supports your ideas, and retire this one for a little while.

J C wrote: »

Which part of the sentence ‘Evolution NEVER happened’ do you not understand????!!!!!:eek::pac::):D

There's one part I don't get. The emotes at the end. What are they all about?

Disagreeing with a thing is not the same as failing to understand. Failing to understand is instead evident in the content of the arguments used to justify that position. You’ve repeatedly demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding of science.

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
......and the idea that huge amounts of time can breathe life into dead things is just as preposterous!!

AtomicHorror
And yet every time a person eats, some of the dead matter consumed is digested, assimilated and converted into living tissue. Repaired cells, new cells, new DNA, new proteins... maybe an embryo... all by simple materialistic means. There's no lightning bolts from above, no fuzzy gaps in our knowledge in which to insert majick or God. It's just biology, chemistry and physics.

Sure, it happens within an established life form. But it happens quickly and it happens countless billions of times a day. There's nothing mysterious about life from lifelessness.

Life is ALWAYS observed to arise from pre-existing life …….it is called the Biological Law of Biogenesis!!!!

……and something that has died REMAINS dead…….barring a Divine miracle!!!!

…..you are confusing the life processes of living organisms with their Creation!!!!
……and the two concepts are totally separate things!!!:cool:

And you have missed my point completely. Life forms construct new life out of lifeless matter. The atoms that constitute the Earth come to form the structure of new beings. Even DNA itself is built, piece-by-piece, from non-living organics. If life can mindlessly construct new life from non-living matter, then surely all that is required of abiogenesis is the correct conditions.

This does not render the process a certainty, it merely allows us to discard the “impossibility”.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
So are we really going to say that it's impossible to get a proto cell from reactions occuring trillions of times per second in hundreds of thousands of locations stewing in ideal conditions for a couple of billion years when the ingredients provided just happen to be the recipe for a proto cell?

In a word……YES!!!!

…..it’s like throwing a load of gold wire and plastic into a blender…….and expecting a computer to spontaneously emerge from it!!!!!:eek:

Another howler from the J C school of rubbish analogies. A blender is a device designed only to dismantle. It is not analogous to any of the posited primordial conditions. Gold wire and plastic are inert substances. They are not analogous to the reactive organic compounds that are now present in life forms. Your analogy assumes only destructive interaction, the degeneration of components into smaller and smaller parts, this is not chemical interactions and reactions. There is no analogy in your hypothesis to allow parallelism, nor to account for the basic laws of chemistry. Finally, a computer is not a demonstrably self-replicating or mutating object. Both features are absent from your non-analogy.

J C wrote: »

……..what amazes me is how otherwise apparently rational Atheists……….become irrational and suffer 'brain meltdown'……..when faced with the overwhelming evidence for an Intelligent Designer of life!!!!!

Their need to be rational is obviously totally overwhelmed by their need for denial!!!!:eek::)

You are amazed because you can’t see where we are coming from. Whereas I’m not at all surprised at your irrationality. It’s exactly what I expect from you.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No… the first self-replicating cell, fully formed, is the starting point of evolution.

Just to clarify that point, I think the term "unit" is better than cell. Cell implies the modern complicated cell structure, which wouldn't have just popped into existence, but most likely would have evolved itself. The first replicating unites, the start of evolution, would have been a lot similar to what we know today as a cell

I mention this so we can get away from having another tired debate about the odds of a cell forming randomly.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Just to clarify that point, I think the term "unit" is better than cell. Cell implies the modern complicated cell structure, which wouldn't have just popped into existence, but most likely would have evolved itself. The first replicating unites, the start of evolution, would have been a lot similar to what we know today as a cell.

Agreed, sort of. Certainly the first protocells would have been very simple indeed. To extend evolution beyond the "protocell" is speculation at this time. "Unit" might refer to the first self-replicating molecules. Most of the abiogenesis hypotheses under consideration require evolution to act from an early point. However, since abiogenesis is an unknown, it is not appropriate for us to state anything prior to protocells as fact in reference to the theory of evolution.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

To extend evolution beyond the "protocell" is speculation at this time. "Unit" might refer to the first self-replicating molecules. Most of the abiogenesis hypotheses under consideration require evolution to act from an early point. However, since abiogenesis is an unknown, it is not appropriate for us to state anything prior to protocells as fact in reference to the theory of evolution.

+1

That is a good point.

Evolution may be encompassed in a theory of abiogenesis, but we can properly model at start at the earliest observed period in the fossil record, which was the cell.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

+1

That is a good point.

Evolution may be encompassed in a theory of abiogenesis, but we can properly model at start at the earliest observed period in the fossil record, which was the cell.

The single common ancestor is not actually observed in the fossil record, but in the genetic phylogeny. We have yet to identify a species with 0% genetic similarity to any other, which shows complete inter-relatedness. I suspect that we will one day find a genome that does not relate at all, but not here on earth. Mind you, if we did find it on Earth, that would really be exciting.

AtomicHorror

I almost missed this beauty:

J C wrote: »

.....could I point out to the Physicists amongst us, that Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evolution are the Biological equivalents of a perpetual motion machine......and they are just as scientifically unsound!!!!!!!!!!:)

A perpetual motion machine breaks the law of conservation of energy, as well as typically breaking one or both of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Evolution breaks no laws of physics. If it did, the physicists would be busy debunking it as surely as they would any other pseudoscience. Evolution has been claimed by some to act in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics, but this has been shown to be false as well as to be based upon a naive understanding of that law.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said (Part 2):

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Millennia? The standard dating of the Flood is at 2304 BC ± 11 years. From the below I gather the revised chronology gives Egypt emerging c2100 BC - entirely consistent with the Biblical record. By the currently accepted chronology, the Egyptian first dynasty predates the Flood by 1000 years. The Egyptian Old Kingdom predates the flood by 600 years. The Flood would have occurred just 50 years before the foundation of the Middle Kingdom after a time of invasion, strife and ironically widespread drought.
So you would need to move the Egyptian Chronology back by 1000 years plus whatever amount of time is needed for the "bulking up" of the human population, settlement and unification of the region. Let's say another 400 years, which would be conservative by the estimates of historians.
1400 years. The extreme changes suggested to made to the chronology in 100 years of Egyptology, has been about 400 years.

Yes, I see your point. It seems the article was refering to a different revision. Several disputes concurrent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Both articles are part of an expanding body of evidence that links the period once known as ‘predynastic’ so firmly to the ages of the pyramids and later, that the term should be abandoned.9
Williams has published several articles in archaeology journals, and his modern research appears to confirm the Genesis account.
I've read his work. His notions on the chronology have no been so much as considered by Egyptologists, let alone debated. They consider the idea unworkable as it would require an incredible development speed of the Egyptians.

So a secular expert in the field experiences the 'not even to be considered' treatment commonly meted out to creationists - just because he questions the received wisdom. Ah, well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Again, I don't mind scepticism from unbelievers. I do mind arrogant dismissal of even considering it might be right. Scepticism is all I'm trying to push with reference to the Ark. Your scepticism. I think we can safely say I'm there already.

My Ark is not up for dispute in my mind - its existence and purpose is a fixed truth on theological grounds. It is anyone who has not that knowledge whom I expect to be sceptical, rather than closed-minded about the possibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No problem. But it cannot just dismiss all scientific argument in support of it. One should at least examine the possibilities. Of course, but if the evidence is found lacking, it is dismissed.

There is no evidence that such a structure could be made? Have you looked? Does not looking count as absence of evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So unless we build the ark, it cannot be considered a possibility? It is OK to absolutely affirm that such a structure could not be made?
Doesn't sound much like science to me! Until it can be shown how such a very unlikely occurrence could be achieved, it's not unreasonable to expect very extreme scepticism.

Let me put a very common sense point to you about the Ark: its size was c.137x23x13.7 meters or 450x75x45 feet. If I were asked to construct an Ark using my non-existent ship-building skills, I at least would start with the idea of using giant trees for the length, and lesser ones for the width. That would give a solid base. On that I would build a strong multi-story superstructure, covering the whole thing with thick planking. Finishing up with a good coat of pitch. Sounds floatable and sturdy.

Now give that to men who have many more skils than me, and many refinements or alternatives might be made to improve things. Is all of this beyond a reasonable expectation? I can understand the problems if one were making a sailing ship - but not a barge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It wouldn't get the man denied a tenure, for example?
I fear their dreams would soon turn to nightmares, as they were branded closet creationists. Large chunks of the old and new testament have been examined by scientists and historians and established as historically accurate. There is considerable mainstream research ongoing into the historical existence of Jesus Christ, and it would not at all be considered outrageous for him to have been a real historical figure. Finding Noah's Ark, minus the assumption of a global flood (lets imagine a large regional one instead) and minus spiritual speculations, that's going to make headlines in the mainstream press and certainly won't hurt an academic career.

Anti-creationists, if pushed, could live with large regional floods, just as they can live with an historical Jesus. What they could not live with is a Flood that required a boat as big as the ark - a global flood.

Allowing the construction of such an ark to have been feasible would be a step in the direction of validating the Creationist account. Perhaps they can take it, perhaps not. If the remains of the ark are found, it will certainly shake the conscience of men - but alternative accounts will be used to explain its existence - anything other than the Biblical account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Proof for anything material is in the examination - for the ark, that would mean for a start showing that such a structure is possible (computer modeling?), and the only absolute proof of course being finding its remains. But even then, one could not prove it was the ark. Finding an ark, even if it cannot be shown to be the ark, would go a long way to helping creationists, however inadvertently.

Indeed - but see above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Anyway, proof of the ark is not what creationists seek. Just to show that it was feasible.
Finding anything comparable that could be dated to the appropriate time would demonstrate feasibility. Mind you, it would also put creationists in rather a bind. The dating would be by stratigraphy and radiometric dating. Reject an ark that could be Noah's, or reject the age of the Earth... Now that would be fun.

Hmm. How about accepting the Biblical dating of both the Ark and the Earth? If stratigraphy and radiometric dating suggested, say, a 10000 BC date, that would just as well challenge the validity of the methods - the Biblical dating method being supported by the existence of the Ark, a prediction of the Biblical model.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The single common ancestor is not actually observed in the fossil record, but in the genetic phylogeny. We have yet to identify a species with 0% genetic similarity to any other, which shows complete inter-relatedness. I suspect that we will one day find a genome that does not relate at all, but not here on earth. Mind you, if we did find it on Earth, that would really be exciting.

Oh I know, I didn't mean a cell, as in a single cell, I mean we only have cells as the earliest fossils (as far as I know). Speculation as to what life was like before that is just that, speculation.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said (Part 2):
Yes, I see your point. It seems the article was refering to a different revision. Several disputes concurrent.

No, it was referring specifically to a creationist revision. Nobody within the field is suggesting a revision on the scale of millennia.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So a secular expert in the field experiences the 'not even to be considered' treatment commonly meted out to creationists - just because he questions the received wisdom. Ah, well.

Questioning of the conventional wisdom is not a reason for dismissing a claim. Making an extra-ordinary claim based on mundane evidence or misinterpreted evidence is a reason for dismissal.

wolfsbane wrote: »

My Ark is not up for dispute in my mind - its existence and purpose is a fixed truth on theological grounds. It is anyone who has not that knowledge whom I expect to be sceptical, rather than closed-minded about the possibility.

So you ask reasonable scepticism of us, but not of yourself? It's hard to see how it is possible to engage in reasonable debate with such a mind set.

wolfsbane wrote: »

There is no evidence that such a structure could be made? Have you looked? Does not looking count as absence of evidence?

The evidence presented to date is not compelling. I have looked. Not looking is not absence of evidence.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me put a very common sense point to you about the Ark: its size was c.137x23x13.7 meters or 450x75x45 feet. If I were asked to construct an Ark using my non-existent ship-building skills, I at least would start with the idea of using giant trees for the length, and lesser ones for the width. That would give a solid base. On that I would build a strong multi-story superstructure, covering the whole thing with thick planking. Finishing up with a good coat of pitch. Sounds floatable and sturdy.

I think to assume that such a structure would be "floatable", when we have never seen it's like, nor even a simulation of it, is to assume too much. Especially so when you admit to no knowledge of ship building.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Now give that to men who have many more skils than me, and many refinements or alternatives might be made to improve things. Is all of this beyond a reasonable expectation? I can understand the problems if one were making a sailing ship - but not a barge.

I cannot call it impossible, based on my understanding of ship building. What I am saying is that it is unprecedented in numerous regards and thus, following the notion of extra-ordinary claims requiring extra-ordinary evidence, my scepticism is appropriate.

I do find it strange that nobody has attempted to build such a vessel. After all, the failure of any given design would not disprove the concept entirely, whilst its success would be a boost to creationism. Putting aside the cost, a win-win scenario for the creation camp.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Anti-creationists, if pushed, could live with large regional floods, just as they can live with an historical Jesus. What they could not live with is a Flood that required a boat as big as the ark - a global flood.

There might be many hitherto unknown reasons for such a vessel. Even a regional flood might be too large and too quickly spreading for locals to escape by other means.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Allowing the construction of such an ark to have been feasible would be a step in the direction of validating the Creationist account.

It is not the business of science to chase God. Its purpose is to make and report observations, irrespective of their convenience to anyone.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Perhaps they can take it, perhaps not. If the remains of the ark are found, it will certainly shake the conscience of men - but alternative accounts will be used to explain its existence - anything other than the Biblical account.

Perhaps, but I'm sure the creationists would gain numbers because of it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. How about accepting the Biblical dating of both the Ark and the Earth? If stratigraphy and radiometric dating suggested, say, a 10000 BC date, that would just as well challenge the validity of the methods - the Biblical dating method being supported by the existence of the Ark, a prediction of the Biblical model.

Unless you're willing to scientifically prove the literal veracity the bible as a whole, it is not an admissible source of information for any scientist. All such written sources are cited with caution. The bible is no different in that regard. The laws of physics and chemistry are much more reliable.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh I know, I didn't mean a cell, as in a single cell, I mean we only have cells as the earliest fossils (as far as I know). Speculation as to what life was like before that is just that, speculation.

That's correct yes. I don't think anything simpler would fossilise really.