Any Evolution-believing Person care to Explain Origin of Life?

[Annie]

Yep, and I don't have a problem with that at all. Teach ID in church or at home if you like. School science class is for teaching provable facts IMO not faith.

My point. Well I would add philosophy/theology/contemporary issues to the possible curriculum.

 

[-Cp]

As usual - thread is getting derailed...

I still want to know what Evolutionists think pertaining to the first cells of life on Earth - how did they get there...

 

[The ClayTaurus]

As usual - thread is getting derailed...

I still want to know what Evolutionists think pertaining to the first cells of life on Earth - how did they get there...

I say again; being an evolutionist doesn't mean you're necessarily against divine creation. As for people who do not believe in divine creation, most will tell you that the origin of life is still unknown. The answer is not discovered yet.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No see, that's "micro" evolution. That's the part that's irrefutable.

Now we have "micro" and "macro" evolution, because "macro" doesn't have the undeniable proof that "micro" evolution has.

The evidence is in the fossil record.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

ID can't make sense to illogical people who have hardened their minds and hearts to the concepts of 'faith', but follow Macro Evolution to their grave because "Somebody said it's true'.

Or because their is abundant scientific evidence of it in the fossil record. Oh, but wait, scientific evidence isn't anything that religious wackos find valuable.

ID just makes more sense.

If everything just made sense there would be no need for science at all.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Exactly. We're getting 'taller' as a people. We're changing our weights and our characteristics. We'll never be anything but people, however. Adaption is NOT evolution.

We're getting taller because we have better medicine and people are in general better able to not get sick in modern times. It doesn't have anything to do with genetics.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Both creationism and evolution theory require 'faith'. Neither is 'provable'.

Incorrect. Evolution makes predictions about what will be observed in the fossil record, and hence can be verified through observation of the fossil record. it can also potentially be falsified in the same way.

Creation, on the other hand, makes no predictions about future observations. It is however, falsifiable, as it states the Earth was created in 7 days, and there is ample scientific evidence to the contrary of that.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

As usual - thread is getting derailed...

I still want to know what Evolutionists think pertaining to the first cells of life on Earth - how did they get there...

They were formed out of a soup of complex organic molecules. Other than that no one knows yet.

 

[dmp]

Or because their is abundant scientific evidence of it in the fossil record. Oh, but wait, scientific evidence isn't anything that religious wackos find valuable.



If everything just made sense there would be no need for science at all.

There's NO fossil record which proves Evolution. We have 'extinct' animals. That's about it.

 

[dmp]

They were formed out of a soup of complex organic molecules. Other than that no one knows yet.

Translation:

By Accident.

Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."(1) That's right - zero!

 

[manu1959]

We're getting taller because we have better medicine and people are in general better able to not get sick in modern times. It doesn't have anything to do with genetics.

which medicine do i take to make me taller....

height is genetic ya moron

 

[manu1959]

They were formed out of a soup of complex organic molecules. Other than that no one knows yet.

where did the complex organic molecules come form?

how does anyone know this?

 

[Gunny]

where did the complex organic molecules come form?

how does anyone know this?

You didn't know? It just "happened." :happy2:

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Spidey: please stop. You're hurting your cause with every post you make; not helping it. Thanks.

 

[manu1959]

You didn't know? It just "happened." :happy2:

you mean like creationisim?....sorry couldn't resist

 

[Gunny]

you mean like creationisim?....sorry couldn't resist

Oh, no problem. JUST LIKE creationism.

From "nothing" suddenly there was "something." This defies the laws of science; however, that never stops the anti-religious.

Then, out of this "something," suddenly the perfect mix of energy and matter create life.

This, of course, is just all kinds of logical as Hell.

 

[manu1959]

Oh, no problem. JUST LIKE creationism.

From "nothing" suddenly there was "something." This defies the laws of science; however, that never stops the anti-religious.

Then, out of this "something," suddenly the perfect mix of energy and matter create life.

This, of course, is just all kinds of logical as Hell.

yes creationism defies the laws of science....

 

[Gunny]

yes creationism defies the laws of science....

I have no problem with creationism defying the laws of science. I DO take issue with science defying its own laws to push a theory that is "creationism" by any other name.

I have no problem with science explaining what it is supposed to. I DO have a problem with the intellectually-elite, "pseudo-scientists" attempting to explain with science what it cannot, and/or attempt to use it to refute creationism.

 

[MissileMan]

Oh, no problem. JUST LIKE creationism.

From "nothing" suddenly there was "something." This defies the laws of science; however, that never stops the anti-religious.

Then, out of this "something," suddenly the perfect mix of energy and matter create life.

This, of course, is just all kinds of logical as Hell.

To be fair Gunny...your argument is the very same thing, except you toss in a deity to whip up something from nothing.

 

[manu1959]

I have no problem with creationism defying the laws of science. I DO take issue with science defying its own laws to push a theory that is "creationism" by any other name.

I have no problem with science explaining what it is supposed to. I DO have a problem with the intellectually-elite, "pseudo-scientists" attempting to explain with science what it cannot, and/or attempt to use it to refute creationism.

at one point there was nothing .... the next moment there was life

one camp believes that a god created that moment

one camp believes that moment occurred on its own with no help from a god

one camp is unsure which camp they are in as they are waiting for proof

i believe that you should believe in what you believe and accept and respect the beliefs of others...