A new study suggests clay may have been the birthplace of life on Earth.

Cornell University researchers found that clay may have served as the first breeding ground for the complex biochemicals that make life possible, a finding that may reverberate with anyone familiar with the Biblical creation story.

“We propose that in early geological history, clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions,” said Dan Luo, professor of biological and environmental engineering and a member of the Kavli Institute at Cornell for Nanoscale Science, according to Science Daily
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105132027.htm).

The clay absorbs liquids like a sponge and acts as the perfect place for chemicals to react with one another to form proteins, DNA and eventually living cells.

According to the Old Testament, God made the first man Adam from earth or clay. Adam comes from the Hebrew word adamah, which means earth. The Quaran, Greek mythology and other creation stories also say God molded man from clay.

Scientists found that the clay hydrogel could have protected the chemical processes until the membrane that surrounds living cells fully developed.

The study cites further evidence, noting that geological history shows the first appearance of clay to be at the same time biomolecules began to form into cell-like structures.

How the biological machines evolved remains to be explained, Luo said. Luo and his fellow researchers are still trying to figure out why clay hydrogel is such a successful material in cell-free protein production.

Source:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/science/study-suggests-life-began-with-clay-echoing-bible-creation-story.amp

Another study from Harvard University also confirms this:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2003/11/did-life-originally-spring-from-clay/

Additional Reports from New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/03/us/new-finding-backs-idea-that-life-started-in-clay-rather-than-sea.html

Science is still developing, there are millions of truths science is still yet to discover. For science, most of what used to hold true as theories yesteryears are today seen as thrash because of new discoveries. More and more discoveries would still be made that'll render the theories of today useless.

Anyone who bases his life and soul on science is standing on sinking ground.

We thank God for Science. Science is good. It has solved many problems. But there are still many problems science will never solve.

Creation overflows with evidence that points towards the Creator God.

The design and complexity of life loudly declare "There is God."

Those who are squandering their lives away in the false hope that God does not exist should reconsider their stands in the best interest of their souls.

When you hear how atheists address God and speak spitefully of Divinity, you'll shudder.

God has a promise to all atheists who refuse to repent:

"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." Jude 1:14-15 (Emphasis mine).

The evolution theory is a satanic invention targeted at making people forget God.

Jehovah God who made us gave us a kind of consciousness that food can't satisfy and that is spiritual consciousness
When people begin to question who they are, why they are here, where they are going, it usually starts with the Creator and these things draws people close to God

There's an enemy, a vicious enemy who did not create anything, not even a molecule of grain but he wants people to turn to him and acknowledge him. He began with our first parents by appealing to selfish greed and since then, he's been trying to mislead mankind. No matter how one claims not to accept or believe in Satan, once you do not acknowledge God or please God, you belong to Satan

Satan is not stupid, he's very intelligent.
He has prepared a religious doctrine called Evolution that appeals to selfish desires so that man will listen to that serpentine teaching do as they please.
Imagine how men will say they are wise cos they don't believe in God but life came by chance

If there is no God, our life here is meaningless, purposeless and all the questions I dropped on the onset are just silly questions and that will not differentiate us from animals.

Until scientists can create a perfect man with higher intelligence, I will start to believe them but they must tell me who they (the scientist) represent- a Creator or Chance

Evolution promotes selfishness. See how selfish people are becoming today and people don't care. I wonder how the future will be like when evolution will become an established doctrine where there is no fear of God. Even evolutionists will beg God for help

Aemmyjah:
Jehovah God who made us gave us a kind of consciousness that food can't satisfy and that is spiritual consciousness
When people begin to question who they are, why they are here, where they are going, it usually starts with the Creator and these things draws people close to God

There's an enemy, a vicious enemy who did not create anything, not even a molecule of grain but he wants people to turn to him and acknowledge him. He began with our first parents by appealing to selfish greed and since then, he's been trying to mislead mankind. No matter how one claims not to accept or believe in Satan, once you do not acknowledge God or please God, you belong to Satan

Satan is not stupid, he's very intelligent.
He has prepared a religious doctrine called Evolution that appeals to selfish desires so that man will listen to that serpentine teaching do as they please.
Imagine how men will say they are wise cos they don't believe in God but life came by chance

If there is no God, our life here is meaningless, purposeless and all the questions I dropped on the onset are just silly questions and that will not differentiate us from animals.

Until scientists can create a perfect man with higher intelligence, I will start to believe them but they must tell me who they (the scientist) represent- a Creator or Chance

Evolution promotes selfishness. See how selfish people are becoming today and people don't care. I wonder how the future will be like when evolution will become an established doctrine where there is no fear of God. Even evolutionists will beg God for help

Very deep message.

He who has ears would hear.

Psalm 14:1

"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good."

We're yet to receive any objection from those who call themselves apes.

HisSplendor:
We're yet to receive any objection from those who call themselves apes.

No where in the right up says Animalia were created from clay.
Does a “ape” not have life?

A bigger fool believes in jewish mythology and call yahweh a mere israelite his god.

HisSplendor:
r

Several things here.

First of all, you need to understand that no one is against your God. If we find credible evidence for biblical claims, we are more than happy to accept it.

The idea that evolution somehow opposes or tried to oppose “God" is a laughable one. Evolutionary scientists simply report data as they find them.

If it contradicts your belief, then that's between you and your belief. Stop looking for enemies where there are none. No one is against you, or your God.

Secondly, there seems to be this incredibly childish attitude I've noticed among some theists.

And that is, when you find the slightest, and i mean the slightest piece of scientific data that suggests an idea vaguely similar to something in your bible, you jump on it as absolute proof for every single claim made by your book.

That's not how proof works, and that's not how science works.

Every individual claim made by any religious book must stand and fall on its own merit. For example, proving the jews were once in egypt won't automatically prove the plagues happened.. or that the sun stood for 3 days.

Every claim stands and falls on its own merit. In the next post, I'll address the claims you've made about clay

HisSplendor:
A new study suggests clay may have been the birthplace of life on Earth.

Cornell University researchers found that clay may have served as the first breeding ground for the complex biochemicals that make life possible, a finding that may reverberate with anyone familiar with the Biblical creation story.

“We propose that in early geological history, clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions,” said Dan Luo, professor of biological and environmental engineering and a member of the Kavli Institute at Cornell for Nanoscale Science, according to Science Daily
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105132027.htm).

The clay absorbs liquids like a sponge and acts as the perfect place for chemicals to react with one another to form proteins, DNA and eventually living cells.

According to the Old Testament, God made the first man Adam from earth or clay. Adam comes from the Hebrew word adamah, which means earth. The Quaran, Greek mythology and other creation stories also say God molded man from clay.

Scientists found that the clay hydrogel could have protected the chemical processes until the membrane that surrounds living cells fully developed.

The study cites further evidence, noting that geological history shows the first appearance of clay to be at the same time biomolecules began to form into cell-like structures.

How the biological machines evolved remains to be explained, Luo said. Luo and his fellow researchers are still trying to figure out why clay hydrogel is such a successful material in cell-free protein production.

Source:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/science/study-suggests-life-began-with-clay-echoing-bible-creation-story.amp

Another study from Harvard University also confirms this:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2003/11/did-life-originally-spring-from-clay/

Additional Reports from New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/03/us/new-finding-backs-idea-that-life-started-in-clay-rather-than-sea.html

Now.. on to the claims made here.

I actually read through these journals, and I'm sorry to say, that they don't prove your biblical narrative. In fact, they do your belief more harm than good.

Let me try to break it down for you.

1. The reports don't just support evolution. They imply it.

Reading through this thread, I've observed your anti-evolution stance. Unfortunately for you, the research papers don't help you.

The research paper from "science daily", talks about the origin of life, from non-life. It implies that clay hydrogel, due to it's nature, could act as a possible medium to allow the first cells to form, away from the harsh environment that would have prevented such formation.

The first simple cells would still very much need to evolve into more complex cells, and eventually complex organisms.

The process of evolution is still very much intact here. And as much as you'd hate to hear it, even with this story, humans will still end up evolving from ape-like ancestors.


2. The reports so far are still speculative.

The origin of life is still widely unknown. If you read through the papers, you would know that the writers are referring to probability, and not certainty.

There are many probable ways life could have emerged. The clay hydrogel thing just happens to be one of them. We're still yet to prove any with certainty.

I'll say again. Probability does NOT equal certainty.


3. The research directly contradicts the biblical narrative.

The idea that "clay" is used in both narratives doesn't mean that one proves the other. If you read the article and read your bible again, you'll see the blatantly clear contradiction.

The bible says man was made from dust, or clay. The article said clay acted as a safe place for the potential life-creating chemicals to react.

Nowhere in the reports does it say that the first cells were formed directly from the clay. Those are 2 very, very different claims.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the reports so far are nowhere near confirming anything in the biblical narrative.

If sometime in the future, some scientific data does so, I'd be more than happy to engage with it. But until then, let's call a spade a spade.

Please when talking about CREATION can you guys just focus on the story and avoid having to do with EVOLUTION?

It is simple as ABC.

Creationists.
Where do you come from?
God CREATED Adam and Eve.

Evolutionists.
Where do you come from?
Evolved from APES.

Let each person speak about his/her own origin no wahala!

Wilgrea7:


Now.. on to the claims made here.

I actually read through these journals, and I'm sorry to say, that they don't prove your biblical narrative. In fact, they do your belief more harm than good.

Let me try to break it down for you.

1. The reports don't just support evolution. They imply it.

Reading through this thread, I've observed your anti-evolution stance. Unfortunately for you, the research papers don't help you.

The research paper from "science daily", talks about the origin of life, from non-life. It implies that clay hydrogel, due to it's nature, could act as a possible medium to allow the first cells to form, away from the harsh environment that would have prevented such formation.

The first simple cells would still very much need to evolve into more complex cells, and eventually complex organisms.

The process of evolution is still very much intact here. And as much as you'd hate to hear it, even with this story, humans will still end up evolving from ape-like ancestors.


2. The reports so far are still speculative.

The origin of life is still widely unknown. If you read through the papers, you would know that the writers are referring to probability, and not certainty.

There are many probable ways life could have emerged. The clay hydrogel thing just happens to be one of them. We're still yet to prove any with certainty.

I'll say again. Probability does NOT equal certainty.


3. The research directly contradicts the biblical narrative.

The idea that "clay" is used in both narratives doesn't mean that one proves the other. If you read the article and read your bible again, you'll see the blatantly clear contradiction.

The bible says man was made from dust, or clay. The article said clay acted as a safe place for the potential life-creating chemicals to react.

Nowhere in the reports does it say that the first cells were formed directly from the clay. Those are 2 very, very different claims.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the reports so far are nowhere near confirming anything in the biblical narrative.

If sometime in the future, some scientific data does so, I'd be more than happy to engage with it. But until then, let's call a spade a spade.

You bursted no bubble because there's none to burst.

The topic of the thread is taken word for word from Science Daily. All other sources referenced above were also captioned in similar terms.

You can keep deceiving yourself. Since the topic isn't my creation, you'll do well to go and argue with the researchers.

HisSplendor:


You bursted no bubble because there's none to burst.

The topic of the thread is taken word for word from Science Daily. All other sources referenced above were also captioned in similar terms.

You can keep deceiving yourself. Since the topic isn't my creation, you'll do well to go and argue with the researchers.

This is what the “science daily” said.
Even pointing towards EVOLUTION!

Maynman:


This is what the “science daily” said.
Even pointing towards EVOLUTION!

They would have referenced evolution directly but they didn't. Rather, they titled the subject in support of the creation story.

HisSplendor:


You bursted no bubble because there's none to burst.

The topic of the thread is taken word for word from Science Daily. All other sources referenced above were also captioned in similar terms.

You can keep deceiving yourself. Since the topic isn't my creation, you'll do well to go and argue with the researchers.

1. You're lying. The topic of the thread was taken from Fox news, a well known right-wing conservative news station

The only 2 scientific sources there are science daily and Harvard. And none imply that the findings "echo" the biblical creation story.

I've attached screenshots below for reference.


2. Both scientific sources clearly make reference to probability, and also clearly state that the findings do NOT prove any creation myth.

Once again. You're lying. I'm beginning to doubt how much of the article you really read.

HisSplendor:


They would have referenced evolution directly but they didn't. Rather, they titled the subject in support of the creation story.

No where did they titled the subject in support of the CHRISTIAN creation story.
Read it well and see how they directly mentioned evolution

Maynman:


No where did they titled the subject in support of the CHRISTIAN creation story.
Read it well and see how they directly mentioned evolution

I didn't need to argue with you. Visit the Science Daily link below, and also observe the attached screenshot.

What topic can you find? Does the topic say Evolution is the subject supported by the research?

HisSplendor:


I didn't need to argue with you. Visit the Science Daily link below, and also observe the attached screenshot.

What topic can you find? Does the topic say Evolution is the subject supported by the research?

What do you understand by “evolution”. What’s th concept?
Where in the topic did “they titled the subject in support of the creation story”?

Maynman:


What do you understand by “evolution”. What’s th concept?
Where in the topic did “they titled the subject in support of the creation story”?

I'm not here to discuss evolution. You're still denying the title of the Science Daily Post?

HisSplendor:


I'm not here to discuss evolution. You're still denying the title of the Science Daily Post?

Who said anything about “title” if not you, in your own words “they titled the subject in support of the creation story”?
Why not show us where they titled it?

What do you understand by “evolution”?

HisSplendor:

I didn't need to argue with you. Visit the Science Daily link below, and also observe the attached screenshot.
What topic can you find? Does the topic say Evolution is the subject supported by the research?

It's not the truth about how life got here that matters to atheists but the fear of having to come back to the idea that an intelligent being caused their existence so they have to OBEY as in take instructions from Him.

But what really baffles me is why they're not satisfied with different opinions regarding the origin of life.
If i say my own grandparents that i don't know were Adam and Eve but you say yours is APES there's no problem na. You will relate with your kind while i will relate with mine!

MaxInDHouse:

It's not the truth about how life got here that matters to atheists but the fear of having to come back to the idea that an intelligent being caused their existence so they have to OBEY as in take instructions from Him.

But what really baffles me is why they're not satisfied with different opinions regarding the origin of life.
If i say my own grandparents that i don't know were Adam and Eve but you say yours is APES there's no problem na. You will relate with your kind while i will relate with mine!

Don't mind them. Their evolution therory has so many flaws but they deliberately turn a blind eye because they don't want to be answerable to God. But, they forget that their ideologies do not erase His existence.