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

[SpidermanTuba]

www.hop.com

re-read the link I posted. Read it aloud if you need help. Maybe I can find a 6th grade tutor for you.

I can't find in your link where it says all I have to do is read a single sentence from a paper to understand the entire thing.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Really

Really.

Just type in

observed speciation


to google. That is, if facts interest you.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Now you might say "Well the early Earth Atmostphere had no oxygen" - if that were true, there'd be no Ozone layer in which the Ultraviolet rays from the Sun would surely destroy any cells trying to develop.

That argument is completely bunk. The ozone layer is high in the atmosphere. The atmosphere isn't a homogenous fluid, nor is its composition time independant.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

i am 6-2 raised in poverty by a single mom....never got sick so no medice....didn't eat much as we were po.....mom was 5-10 dad 6-2

oh yea my younger brother...6-4

next theory please

Here manu, go back to 3rd grade. Talk to Wendell the Worm. You can read a question that was asked on your level, one asked by George W himself

http://yucky.kids.discovery.com/noflash/askwendell/answers/980424house.html

Never got sick, huh? Gee, I wonder how that might have happened. Better health perhaps? Just a theory.

 

[-Cp]

The atmosphere we have now is very different from the one we had billions of years ago.

No need to apologize.

You're wrong - all the fossil records point to an atmosphere that had oxygen in it..

 

[MtnBiker]

That is, if facts interest you.

Hey, we are having a discussion here, you don't have to act like an ass!

 

[liberalogic]

Just a question for those who believe in creationism:

Who created God? And if he is a divine being that was created by no one, then how did he create himself?

The only way to believe in creationism is if you have A LOT of faith because quite frankly it makes absolutely no sense on a logical level. There is no evidence to prove the existence of God, nor how he came into existence. There are many flawed theories (such as Aquinas' theory simply using common logic to disprove infinite regression), but there is no "hard" (or even "soft" for that matter) evidence.

That doesn't mean that I don't respect the views of those who do believe in creationism, but I think that anyone who writes off evolution (which has substantial evidence) due to blind faith, is not thinking logically.

 

[-Cp]

Just a question for those who believe in creationism:

Who created God? And if he is a divine being that was created by no one, then how did he create himself?

The only way to believe in creationism is if you have A LOT of faith because quite frankly it makes absolutely no sense on a logical level. There is no evidence to prove the existence of God, nor how he came into existence. There are many flawed theories (such as Aquinas' theory simply using common logic to disprove infinite regression), but there is no "hard" (or even "soft" for that matter) evidence.

That doesn't mean that I don't respect the views of those who do believe in creationism, but I think that anyone who writes off evolution (which has substantial evidence) due to blind faith, is not thinking logically.

You're right, it does take faith to believe in God - that's the whole point of having a personal relationship with him.

You're way of thinking (all of our ways actually) that makes it difficult for you to comprehend - let alone begin to understand - that God has always been - he has no beginning and no end. We see things in the natural world that begins and ends (life then death) - Since God isn't bound by time, it's not so unfathomable to try and understand that he has no creator (if he did, that'd imply he cannot be God) as that which is created is always created by something greater than itself.

Fyi.. you're wrong about "substantial evidence" for evolution... it doesn't exist.. sorry..

 

[manu1959]

Here manu, go back to 3rd grade. Talk to Wendell the Worm. You can read a question that was asked on your level, one asked by George W himself

http://yucky.kids.discovery.com/noflash/askwendell/answers/980424house.html

Never got sick, huh? Gee, I wonder how that might have happened. Better health perhaps? Just a theory.

spoken like someone that hopes intelligence is contagious.....so you are out of any kind of reasonable response so you resort to inane comments....yep that proves it....height not genetic.....what caused better health if i didn't take any medicine....genetics?...i thought you believed in evolution and survival of the fittest....

 

[manu1959]

Just a question for those who believe in creationism:

Who created God? And if he is a divine being that was created by no one, then how did he create himself?

The only way to believe in creationism is if you have A LOT of faith because quite frankly it makes absolutely no sense on a logical level. There is no evidence to prove the existence of God, nor how he came into existence. There are many flawed theories (such as Aquinas' theory simply using common logic to disprove infinite regression), but there is no "hard" (or even "soft" for that matter) evidence.

That doesn't mean that I don't respect the views of those who do believe in creationism, but I think that anyone who writes off evolution (which has substantial evidence) due to blind faith, is not thinking logically.

Just a question for those who believe in spontaneous life evolving from a primordial soup

where did the soup come form? And if this is the perfect soup that was created by no one, then how did soup know to create itself?

The only way to believe in spontaneous life is if you have A LOT of faith because quite frankly it makes absolutely no sense on a logical level for life simple to decide to appear. There is no evidence to prove the existence of soup, nor how he came into existence. There are many flawed theories but there is no "hard" (or even "soft" for that matter) evidence.

That doesn't mean that I don't respect the views of those who do believe in spontaneous life, some of my best freinds are spontaneous life belivers, but I think that anyone who writes off creationisim (which has substantial evidence) due to blind faith, is not thinking logically.

 

[MissileMan]

but I think that anyone who writes off creationisim (which has substantial evidence) due to blind faith, is not thinking logically.

You were doing fine right up to here.

 

[misterblu]

Just a question for those who believe in creationism:

Who created God? And if he is a divine being that was created by no one, then how did he create himself?

The only way to believe in creationism is if you have A LOT of faith because quite frankly it makes absolutely no sense on a logical level. There is no evidence to prove the existence of God, nor how he came into existence. There are many flawed theories (such as Aquinas' theory simply using common logic to disprove infinite regression), but there is no "hard" (or even "soft" for that matter) evidence.

That doesn't mean that I don't respect the views of those who do believe in creationism, but I think that anyone who writes off evolution (which has substantial evidence) due to blind faith, is not thinking logically.

+

Just a question for those who believe in spontaneous life evolving from a primordial soup

where did the soup come form? And if this is the perfect soup that was created by no one, then how did soup know to create itself?

The only way to believe in spontaneous life is if you have A LOT of faith because quite frankly it makes absolutely no sense on a logical level for life simple to decide to appear. There is no evidence to prove the existence of soup, nor how he came into existence. There are many flawed theories but there is no "hard" (or even "soft" for that matter) evidence.

That doesn't mean that I don't respect the views of those who do believe in spontaneous life, some of my best freinds are spontaneous life belivers, but I think that anyone who writes off creationisim (which has substantial evidence) due to blind faith, is not thinking logically.

=
a tediously long way of illustrating that...

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

To argue that one requires more 'faith' than the other would be laughable.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

+



=
a tediously long way of illustrating that...



To argue that one requires more 'faith' than the other would be laughable.

Oh stop licking yourself!

 

[deaddude]

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the development of Amino Acids (the basic building blocks of life) cannot happen in an environment that has oxygen.

Now you might say "Well the early Earth Atmostphere had no oxygen"

Yes before the existance of plants, free oxygen was probably much rarer than it is today

- if that were true, there'd be no Ozone layer in which the Ultraviolet rays from the Sun would surely destroy any cells trying to develop.

Current theory suggests that life developed under water before it developed on land. There is a reason for this, water reflects and disperses UV rays, in addition it would also protect the developing organics from most gaseous oxygen. This works out rather well since chemical interactions (like say RNA interacting with lipids and proteins) occur natrurally in a liquid much more readily than they would in a solid or a gas.

So plants develope underwater, they release oxygen which rises to the surface, eventually forming the oxygen rich atomosphere we enjoy today.

Primordial soup theory remains as much a possibility as genesis.

 

[manu1959]

+

=
a tediously long way of illustrating that...

To argue that one requires more 'faith' than the other would be laughable.

to draw that conclusion would be puerile.

 

[misterblu]

to draw that conclusion would be puerile.

I don't think it's childish or silly in the slightest.

 

[manu1959]

You were doing fine right up to here.

if they belive it is evidence it is evidence who are you to tell them it is not?

if you can belive that "nothing, bang, soup, man" can occur and your evidence is the writtings of scientists, written millions of years after the fact....and force those writtings to be taught in all schools without exception.....then you should at least be tollerant and allow those that belive...."nothing, six days, rest, man".... equal time ..... their theroy is as plausible as yours

a man once said....."science was created by man to help man undertstand what God had done and how it was done."

oh yea, symetrical arguments are hard to do after a bottle of vino

 

[manu1959]

I don't think it's childish or silly in the slightest.

duh

 

[The ClayTaurus]

if they belive it is evidence it is evidence who are you to tell them it is not?

if you can belive that "nothing, bang, soup, man" can occur and your evidence is the writtings of scientists, written millions of years after the fact....and force those writtings to be taught in all schools without exception.....then you should at least be tollerant and allow those that belive...."nothing, six days, rest, man".... equal time ..... their theroy is as plausible as yours

a man once said....."science was created by man to help man undertstand what God had done and how it was done."

God was created by man to help man understand what science had done and how it was done :shrug:

The inverse game is fun to play

 

[manu1959]

God was created by man to help man understand what science had done and how it was done :shrug:

The inverse game is fun to play

god was created by man to explain the things science could not.

symetrical arguments....they teach you this in law school....works well when negotiating and vetting arguments