Can someone show me evidence of man being created from dirt?

a reply to: cooperton

Yes, we are going around in circles because you keep sidestepping my points. Please post up readable links to the sources in your previous post.

And for the umpteenth time, a non peer-reviewed section of a proceedings in a discipline completely unrelated to biology nearly 200 years ago is by no means compelling evidence.

Wow, this thread got long.
As a simple response to the OP:

biblehub.com...

If you do your homework, things just make sense.
The biblical word used for "dust" is עָפָר - ‘ā·p̄ār

That word can be indicative of more than one thing. Yes, it can literally mean 'dirt', but the word is also used in Scripture to indicate the smallest possible unit of something (which is why the same word is used to describe a city reduced to rubble).

Thus:

God made man out of the smallest possible units on earth.
He literally built him out of atoms.

/end thread.

a reply to: cooperton

While making further electrocrystallization experiments at Fyne Court in 1836, he unexpectedly observed the appearance, development, and propagation of tiny mites within conditions that he believed were destructive to life. He gave no opinion about the cause, but his observations prompted others to speculate about such agents as miracles and spontaneous generation.

Offering no opinion isn't the same as "hesitant".

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

While making further electrocrystallization experiments at Fyne Court in 1836, he unexpectedly observed the appearance, development, and propagation of tiny mites within conditions that he believed were destructive to life. He gave no opinion about the cause, but his observations prompted others to speculate about such agents as miracles and spontaneous generation.

Offering no opinion isn't the same as "hesitant".

You're using a quote that says he made mites from dirt in order to refute my statement that he made life from dirt?

Thank you I rest my case. I was getting sick of repeating myself anyway.

a reply to: cooperton

You have yet to offer anything of substance to support your claims. You even specifically said "He was hesitant to say he created the insects because creation was only thought to be capable by God" which you basically made up out of whole cloth. You keep making claims and refusing to back them up with credible sources that other readers can verify. So yes, I believe we are all in agreement at being sick of your repetition.

Sigh... In case you missed this:

originally posted by: cooperton
google this, and make sure to include the quotes around the phrase: "Proceedings of the london electrical society, during the sessions 1841-2 and 1842-3"

It will be the first option in the search results, click on it. Go to page 240, it should be on a page that is dated March 15th. This will be the full replicated experiment. He goes into great detail regarding his procedure and he generates the same bugs that Crosse claims to have generated.

Sigh... In case you missed this:

originally posted by: cooperton
google this, and make sure to include the quotes around the phrase: "Proceedings of the london electrical society, during the sessions 1841-2 and 1842-3"

It will be the first option in the search results, click on it. Go to page 240, it should be on a page that is dated March 15th. This will be the full replicated experiment. He goes into great detail regarding his procedure and he generates the same bugs that Crosse claims to have generated.

Sigh... In case you missed this:

originally posted by: cooperton
google this, and make sure to include the quotes around the phrase: "Proceedings of the london electrical society, during the sessions 1841-2 and 1842-3"

It will be the first option in the search results, click on it. Go to page 240, it should be on a page that is dated March 15th. This will be the full replicated experiment. He goes into great detail regarding his procedure and he generates the same bugs that Crosse claims to have generated.

a reply to: cooperton

I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I did not use a quote stating that he made mites from dirt. I used a quote that states he gave absolutely no opinion as to the origin of said mites which then led other people to speculate. You've got some serious confirmation bias working through your head as you are only seein and reading what you want to and not the actual words. So go ahead and rest your case. Just keep in mind it's a case built upon a foundation of ignorance.

a reply to: cooperton

As I have stated on a number of occasions now, the rebuttal is here:

GetHyped

originally posted by: peter vlar

While making further electrocrystallization experiments at Fyne Court in 1836, he unexpectedly observed the appearance, development, and propagation of tiny mites within conditions that he believed were destructive to life. He gave no opinion about the cause, but his observations prompted others to speculate about such agents as miracles and spontaneous generation.

^^^that's the quote you used. I bolded the part that supports what I was saying

and @GetHyped, I gave a step by step response to your argument, To which you responded that I did not give any links to support what I was saying (which I did).

Honestly this is retarded. I gave you scientific evidence that life came from dirt and you just can't accept it. BELIEVE whatever you want, I'm tired of this merry-go-round discussion.

originally posted by: cooperton

and @GetHyped, I gave a step by step response to your argument, To which you responded that I did not give any links to support what I was saying (which I did).

You have done nothing of the sort. I echo Pete's sentiment that reading comprehension is not your strong suite. I'll add to that and state logic and rational discourse is certainly not your bread and butter.

I gave you scientific evidence that life came from dirt and you just can't accept it. BELIEVE whatever you want, I'm tired of this merry-go-round discussion.

You have done nothing of the sort. You have made a series of wild, baseless claims and, when pressed to support them, fall back to repeating the same twaddle over and over, long after your arguments have been refuted. This buffoonery of yours has gone on long enough.

originally posted by: cooperton

google this, and make sure to include the quotes around the phrase: "Proceedings of the london electrical society, during the sessions 1841-2 and 1842-3"

It will be the first option in the search results, click on it. Go to page 240, it should be on a page that is dated March 15th. This will be the full replicated experiment. He goes into great detail regarding his procedure and he generates the same bugs that Crosse claims to have generated.

not baseless^.

a reply to: cooperton

It is baseless, for aforementioned reasons. If this is your idea of solid science then you have no idea what the scientific method is or is about. No wonder you believe that insects can come from electricity and dirt (or whatever it is you are trying to claim).

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

While making further electrocrystallization experiments at Fyne Court in 1836, he unexpectedly observed the appearance, development, and propagation of tiny mites within conditions that he believed were destructive to life. He gave no opinion about the cause, but his observations prompted others to speculate about such agents as miracles and spontaneous generation.

^^^that's the quote you used. I bolded the part that supports what I was saying

and @GetHyped, I gave a step by step response to your argument, To which you responded that I did not give any links to support what I was saying (which I did).

Honestly this is retarded. I gave you scientific evidence that life came from dirt and you just can't accept it. BELIEVE whatever you want, I'm tired of this merry-go-round discussion.

I'm sorry, but you're futilely grasping at nonexistent straws here. The following quote does not in any way, shape or form support your claim that Crosse created mites from the dirt.

unexpectedly observed the appearance, development, and propagation of tiny mites

The only thing it says is that he didn't expect them to be there nor did he think the medium was one in which mites may survive and potentially thrive in. You continue to claim that you have provided evidence that life came from dirt when you have done no such thing. At best, you have provided anecdotal extrapolations and they are tentatively tangential at that. It's not evidence, it's what you are extrapolating based on your own confirmation bias plain and simple. If this is such a legitimate feat of science you should be able to provide examples of the experiment successfully being replicated... oh lets say anytime in the 20th century. Can you provide a citation of that nature? Anything peer reviewed? Something less than 200 years old?

a reply to: cooperton

The experiment might have been repeatable but no asceptic techniques are described in any of this work. Also, isolation and characterization of contaminants was highly unsophisticated in those days. Here's an article on how asceptic techniques are carried out in a lab:

www.hos.ufl.edu...

Even today asceptic techniques are imperfect. In February, several hospitals in Los Angeles had an outbreak of a deadly bacteria which were found in the instruments. Sterization to 100% certainty is extremely difficult to accomplish because the bugs mutate and adapt to their environment. And you don't know they are there until they show up like they did in the LA hospitals.
www.latimes.com...=1

To give you an idea of how easy it is for mites to mutate, look at this list of subspecies of Acari. And if you research the literature, you'll find that new species are being identified all the time. Extremely rapid mutation and adapation to environment. Bugs will survive long after we're gone!
bugguide.net...

So the results Crosse's experiment may be technically unsolved, but I would hazard a guess that the mites were in the water and could survive under many different environmental conditions once they were established.

Mites are notoriously difficult to control even today. So I'd take a step back in saying that Crosse created life. The life was always there. They just didn't have the technology to detect it.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

The experiment might have been repeatable but no asceptic techniques are described in any of this work.

I am being 100% serious when I say, thank you for an intelligent response. He did say he baked the equipment at high temperature, which is not near perfect aseptic technique, but it is at least something. It is also curious that he got the same bugs described by Crosse, what are the odds it was contaminated by the same acari egg? Also, how were they spawning from silica gel, if this were a normal biogenic birth?

There are multiple experiments from this century that recreated the experiment but I don't have access to the full article, so the 19th century recreation, along with Crosse's original description, is all I have in full writing. Regardless, since it was recreated successfully, in a geographically separate area (lessening the chance of being contaminated with the same acari egg) the results deserve consideration.

Thanks again for the breath of fresh air in this debate

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

The experiment might have been repeatable but no asceptic techniques are described in any of this work.

I am being 100% serious when I say, thank you for an intelligent response. He did say he baked the equipment at high temperature, which is not near perfect aseptic technique, but it is at least something. It is also curious that he got the same bugs described by Crosse, what are the odds it was contaminated by the same acari egg? Also, how were they spawning from silica gel, if this were a normal biogenic birth?

There are multiple experiments from this century that recreated the experiment but I don't have access to the full article, so the 19th century recreation, along with Crosse's original description, is all I have in full writing. Regardless, since it was recreated successfully, in a geographically separate area (lessening the chance of being contaminated with the same acari egg) the results deserve consideration.

Thanks again for the breath of fresh air in this debate

I don't see anyone repeating this experiment recently. If someone wanted to do it first they would have to repeat the exact conditions under which the original experiment was carried out; and second, with new asceptic methods which should reduce any contamination. Chances are nothing would happen in either experiment simply because the water would be purified to a large extent. Any water that Crosse used would have probably been ordinary tap water which in the 18th century was loaded with microorganism. But even if it was clean, mites can be aireborne in water droplets and dust so repeating the exact conditions would be tough.

Scabies which is caused by mites was rampant in Europe at that time, not just in humans but in animals as well (mange). So I wouldn't be surprised if Crosse or someone else in his lab transmitted the organism. Mites can be aireborne, transmitted in dust and water droplets and I wouldn't be surprised if mites were all over their clothing. Remember personal hygiene wasn't a big topic of discussion in those days! And too, he was conducting an experiment in electricity which doesn't require an asceptic technique.

When the experiment was repeated, they did it in a Bell jar. Mites are ubiquitous - if you looked at the link I posted above to the list of all known mites, you can see that there are hundreds of species. And about the identification of Acari, we now use genetic profiling to identify a new species. So we really don't know what species of Acari Crosse observed and what species turned up in the other experiment. We just know that they were the genus Acari.

That the organism landed and reproduced in the silica gel really isn't surprising - it's sticky and any small organism that came in contact with it would most likely stick to it.

Silica gels are desiccants meaning they absorb water (think of the little silica packets in the box when you order something like a camera or a leather product). So it's highly likely that the mite landed on the silca gel in a water droplet, got stuck in it and just took hold in the gel and reproduced.

In the end, they simply didn't have the knowledge and technology to analyze the results properly. That it could be repeated isn't remarkable knowing that mites are all over the place and probably infested all the experiments.

I don't see any mystery here. Any scientist who has worked in a lab would figure this all out in a heartbeat.

a reply to: Phantom423

"Creation of life through electricity" (2009) Dini J.
"Andrew Crosse: early nineteenth-century amateur of electrical science" (1993) Popock RF
"Andrew Crosse: Electrical Pioneer" (1934) Alexander J.

It was recreated recently^^, I just don't have access to the full articles to see their results (Although the title "creation of life through electricity" does seem to imply a successful result). For now, the drum-roll continues.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I simply stated the obvious, life was created from the earth.

How is it obvious? Those elements don't exist anywhere but Earth?

c'mon phage...water is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, and we are made up of another major element carbon...these 3 alone have been shown to be abundant in the universe...or...were you just being sarcastic?