The origin of life Enigma!

[rdean]

typical answer of retarded or failed person

Sorry, you are the one who is wrong.

The process of evolution is going on today. We can study it. Gather data about it.

So what if how it actually started isn't yet understood? So what?

But not understanding how it began in no way diminishes what we have learned about it. The process is still there, whether beginning through a process we don't yet understand or being magically shimmered into reality by an invisible supernatural and mystical being.

But from what we know about science, which speculation is more likely? An unknown process that ignites the first life or a magical spirit being who shimmers things into existence with a wave of an invisible hand? Wallah!

we are talking about the origin of life which is the first step before a supposed evolution.

how life was emerged in begining (DNA before RNA or RNA before DNA), and how life appear in foetus?

And what was I talking about?

 

[Care4all]

Freeman, God did NOT SAY how the fish, birds, animals and man were created...he said He created them, he did NOT say how He created them....

But what is listed in the Bible, is the sequence in which they were created...fish first, then fowl then land animals then man....

AND SCIENCE and evolution SUPPORTS this.....imho.

 

[Care4all]

God also says we were made out of the dust of the earth....Stardust I presume....carbon/amino acids etc

 

[amrchaos]

I think that Freeman and Froggy are off on a very different track from what is being proposed and what they think is being challenged.

First off--science is not born with answers, it discoveers them. So today, no science do not have the anwer on how life begins and even the Big Bang is more of a speculative model than provable fact.

However--science has disproved and forced the admission of misunderstandings supported by Theologians than any other philosophical thought or beliefs system in all of mans recorded history!! In fact, I can understand why believers would attack anything scientific: It means more admission of wrong and misunderstanding on their part--not science part.


So please. Go ahead and doubt evolution and proclaim God did all the things you said with out describing how or what he did. Science works best under an environment of skepticism. In fact, its truths are stronger than many religious claims because it is based in skepticism.


By the way--think of evolution as a mutation made permanent due to consistant environmental conditions/situations which are not random events.
NOTE: mutatiuions in cells do occur, else half the diseases we know about would not exist.

 

[code1211]

in continuation of thread "just a question to atheists", as I have expected, none atheist is able to prove non existence of supreme force!

Anyway, to prove his hypothesis, Darwin was asked to give firstly an explication about the origin of life...his wild imagination inspire him about a new myth "Primordial soup" of salt, electricity and hot that emerge life

However, Pasteur remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.".

The enigma hidden by darwinists is that none is able to create life in cell, how life is appeared?

:

Assuming that God lives, whatever else God is, He is alive.

You are trying mightily to prove that life cannot have sprung forth spontaneously.

Who or what, in your scheme of things, created God?

It would seem that the all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent Master of the Universe is a life form with a greater complexity than a single cell thingy, and yet you have no problem at all accepting that His existance exists.

Why do you doubt the single cell thingy?

Do you think that magic "pripordial soup" of Darwin that created life is a scientific hypothesis?

What I think doesn't matter. By the by, however, I don't think that the work of Darwin dealt much at all with the origin of life. His interest was the origin of the species as the title might imply.

It is you have asserted that life cannot just occur. You have asserted that a Creator must create life. This begs the question that, if life cannot simply occur and if it must be created by a creator, how was the Creator created?

Again, why is it impossible for you to accept the possibility of the single cell thingy simply occurring in a billion years of constant chance occurrances combining and re-combining and yet the "simply occurring" of God is totally plausible for you?

I can produce physical evidence that physical life exists. You cannot produce physical evidence that God exists and, if you could, there would be no need for faith.

Are you prepared to abandon your faith?

 

[amrchaos]

They have not abandoned their faith when it was show that the earth is a lopsided Sphere and not a disc(which is 2-D)!!
Why in the hell would they do it over something as trivial as origins of life?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Its funny that no ones been able to create life with a big bang, no fish has crawled from the see and became human, no monkey have changed into humans

-exactly as science predicts would never happen!

but gods way of creating life works still yet to this day.

So god made life by having sex with another god and the universe was birthed?

I thought you people tried to wipe out all such religions over the last 2000 years?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Freeman, God did NOT SAY how the fish, birds, animals and man were created...he said He created them, he did NOT say how He created them....

But what is listed in the Bible, is the sequence in which they were created...fish first, then fowl then land animals then man....

AND SCIENCE and evolution SUPPORTS this.....imho.

The plants before the sun thing kinda blows a whole in the text's reliability, though

 

[Care4all]

Freeman, God did NOT SAY how the fish, birds, animals and man were created...he said He created them, he did NOT say how He created them....

But what is listed in the Bible, is the sequence in which they were created...fish first, then fowl then land animals then man....

AND SCIENCE and evolution SUPPORTS this.....imho.

The plants before the sun thing kinda blows a whole in the text's reliability, though

Let there be light, and the light was good.....took place on the proverbial first day....

the position of the sun and the moon on the proverbial 4th day, affixed earth, with them...to where we could use the sun, moon and stars as a guide to travel and know seasons so we could eventually farm....

I know that 4th day really bothers you, but THAT is because you are FORCING your own thoughts on to it....

The light(sun) was there the first proverbial Day.....

anyway, I am not here to force this explanation upon you.....or to force it upon others that believe in God....it is what i believe....simply that....

 

[THE LIGHT]

in continuation of thread "just a question to atheists", as I have expected, none atheist is able to prove non existence of supreme force!

Anyway, to prove his hypothesis, Darwin was asked to give firstly an explication about the origin of life...his wild imagination inspire him about a new myth "Primordial soup" of salt, electricity and hot that emerge life

However, Pasteur remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.".

The enigma hidden by darwinists is that none is able to create life in cell, how life is appeared?

:

Assuming that God lives, whatever else God is, He is alive.

You are trying mightily to prove that life cannot have sprung forth spontaneously.

Who or what, in your scheme of things, created God?

It would seem that the all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent Master of the Universe is a life form with a greater complexity than a single cell thingy, and yet you have no problem at all accepting that His existance exists.

Why do you doubt the single cell thingy?

Do you think that magic "pripordial soup" of Darwin that created life is a scientific hypothesis?

Of course! Everyone should....

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Freeman, God did NOT SAY how the fish, birds, animals and man were created...he said He created them, he did NOT say how He created them....

But what is listed in the Bible, is the sequence in which they were created...fish first, then fowl then land animals then man....

AND SCIENCE and evolution SUPPORTS this.....imho.

The plants before the sun thing kinda blows a whole in the text's reliability, though

Let there be light, and the light was good.....took place on the proverbial first day....

the position of the sun and the moon on the proverbial 4th day, affixed earth, with them...to where we could use the sun, moon and stars as a guide to travel and know seasons so we could eventually farm....

I know that 4th day really bothers you, but THAT is because you are FORCING your own thoughts on to it....

The light(sun) was there the first proverbial Day.....

anyway, I am not here to force this explanation upon you.....or to force it upon others that believe in God....it is what i believe....simply that....

It doesn't say the sun was placed after having been made before, it said it was created after the plants.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
....

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Genesis 1 (NIV)

And if the Light is Sol, then it can't also be TBB, blowing a common apologetic claim out of the water.

​

 

[Freeman]

God also says we were made out of the dust of the earth....Stardust I presume....carbon/amino acids etc

why we are unable to create a living specie with those organic elements from earth?

 

[Freeman]

I think that Freeman and Froggy are off on a very different track from what is being proposed and what they think is being challenged.

First off--science is not born with answers, it discoveers them. So today, no science do not have the anwer on how life begins and even the Big Bang is more of a speculative model than provable fact.

However--science has disproved and forced the admission of misunderstandings supported by Theologians than any other philosophical thought or beliefs system in all of mans recorded history!! In fact, I can understand why believers would attack anything scientific: It means more admission of wrong and misunderstanding on their part--not science part.


So please. Go ahead and doubt evolution and proclaim God did all the things you said with out describing how or what he did. Science works best under an environment of skepticism. In fact, its truths are stronger than many religious claims because it is based in skepticism.


By the way--think of evolution as a mutation made permanent due to consistant environmental conditions/situations which are not random events.
NOTE: mutatiuions in cells do occur, else half the diseases we know about would not exist.

We have to admit that the claim of mutations and genetic information formed only by CHANCE and dice game is an absurd...really absurd!

there is tens of amino acids, and the probability comes out to a staggering chance of one out of 1.28 X 10115. That is 1.28 with 115 zeroes to form a protein by chance if we consider 20 different amino acids!

Given the criteria that not only do all 100 amino acids have a specific sequence, but they are all left-handed and all bonded on the left hand, the probability that this will occur works out to one in 1.28 X 10175. This last calculation overwhelmingly demonstrates the massive problem evolution has in getting inert matter to form a protein. The statistical improbability for the next step, the formation of a single cell from all these improbable proteins, is beyond comprehension.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Making up probabilities proves you a liar.

How big is the universe?

That the events are unlikely explains why we haven't met ET yet. Thanks for proving that the science perfectly explains the observable universe.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

God also says we were made out of the dust of the earth....Stardust I presume....carbon/amino acids etc

why we are unable to create a living specie with those organic elements from earth?

The same reason we couldn't build a jet plane 2000 years ago.

 

[Gatekeeper]

The origin of life Enigma!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in continuation of thread "just a question to atheists", as I have expected, none atheist is able to prove non existence of supreme force!

Anyway, to prove his hypothesis, Darwin was asked to give firstly an explication about the origin of life...his wild imagination inspire him about a new myth "Primordial soup" of salt, electricity and hot that emerge life

However, Pasteur remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.".

The enigma hidden by darwinists is that none is able to create life in cell, how life is appeared?

the other mystery, is that an incomplete cell can't work. A cell is needing all his components to function - so it's quite impossible that a cell evolute by chance!

We all know the true answer....God made us out of mud

And he made women out of a rib

Stupid evolutionists!

God makes US out of Mud?......is there a possibility that God made some of us out of something else 'mud-like'?

 

[Freeman]

God also says we were made out of the dust of the earth....Stardust I presume....carbon/amino acids etc

why we are unable to create a living specie with those organic elements from earth?

The same reason we couldn't build a jet plane 2000 years ago.

the plane is an inert thing,

 

[Freeman]

Making up probabilities proves you a liar.

How big is the universe?

That the events are unlikely explains why we haven't met ET yet. Thanks for proving that the science perfectly explains the observable universe.

Mr goofy
probabilities were even calculated by some evolutionists biologists: Shapiro, Yankee...etc.

and the thread is discussing living cell and species and formation of proteins by "chance" not universe.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

why we are unable to create a living specie with those organic elements from earth?

The same reason we couldn't build a jet plane 2000 years ago.

the plane is an inert thing,

(adj) inert (unable to move or resist motion)



(adj) inert, sluggish, soggy, torpid (slow and apathetic) "she was fat and inert"; "a sluggish worker"; "a mind grown torpid in old age"



World's Fastest Aircraft

• S: (adj) inert, indifferent, neutral (having only a limited ability to react chemically; chemically inactive) "inert matter"; "an indifferent chemical in a reaction"

Lifeforms don't take part in chemical reactions. Chemicals with the lifeform's structures do, but so do the materials comprising the plane (oft to the dismay of the maintenance crew, though the formation of an aluminum oxide layer that prevents further interaction is a truly wonderful thing).

Now, tell me why they couldn't build a plane 2000 years ago and you'll have the answer to your question (though, judging from your evident illiteracy, you probably still won't get it).

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Making up probabilities proves you a liar.

How big is the universe?

That the events are unlikely explains why we haven't met ET yet. Thanks for proving that the science perfectly explains the observable universe.

Mr goofy
probabilities were even calculated by some evolutionists biologists: Shapiro, Yankee...etc.

and the thread is discussing living cell and species and formation of proteins by "chance" not universe.

I get the distinct impression that you are mentally challenged, leading to a moral dilemma when debating with myself whether to continue to reply to your posts as if you were a competent adult capable of critical thinking and learning.