toldailytopic: How did life come into existence?

[voltaire]

My issue, of
course, is that faith ignores
the need for explanation.
When we ask what caused
life, and people say God did
it, and then we ask what
God is, how he did it, and
how we know he did it,
taking these details for
granted due to faith kind of
ruins the explanation.------silenthunter. Actually there are explanations for all these questions you pose. The problem is most christians have never pondered them and therefore have no answer. There are a few individuals who have committed time and thought to these questions. There is a huge volume of material on why we think God did it. You guys hate these publications however and mock them at every chance. You may ask what the evidence is for God doing it. Everyone has the same evidence. The better question is do we have a theory of how God did it. Does this theory explain the evidence the best? We have such theories and honest creationists will make adjustments to their theories when insurmountable problems are shown.

 

[voltaire]

Microscopic life such as diatoms and protozoa are not mentioned in the bible. Since many of them are neccesarry for soil formation and food for ocean life, I would say these creatures were created when the dry land was seperated from the waters.

 

[Caino]

.Life was implanted on the earth by celestial beings and subsequently evolved into what we have today.

We are one of many inhabited planets in a vast, created, friendly and divinely managed universe.

In 1955 a massive revelation occurred which is the 5th such revelation to our world. In it the evolutionary history of our roughly 4.5 billion year old planet is explained in detail. Life was initiated 550 million years ago. Man with "will consciousness" came into being about 1 million years ago.

Much much more is explained in the revelation.

enjoy http://www.truthbook.com/



caino

 

[Stripe]

bad atheist?

Enough with the tautologies. My brain hurts.

How did life on Earth get started? On Day 3 God created plants. Then after He made the sun and moon came the birds, fish, animals and people on Days 5 and 6.

 

[Eggasai]

I used to believe that life came into existence on it's own by chance in a ancient earth. Chemicals reacting together and eventually turning into living cells that later developed into more complex living creatures.

Looking back... that just sounds silly.

The insane complexity of life in the most simple living cell baffles the mind. All of the working parts and blueprint of functionality contained in a living cell is far beyond what random chance could ever dream of producing.

The only logical and reasonable explanation is that an intelligent, supernatural God created life.

I think most people will come to that same general inference. The only issue I have with your conclusion is calling it supernatural for God to create life. To the human mind it is an exercise of such incomprehensible power that we can only call it 'supernatural'. What we don't seem to grasp is that for God this is perfectly natural to create everything from nothing.

It's only supernatural to us, for God it's perfectly natural.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Lon]

The same way the perfect car came into existence:

50 years ago, a bunch of scientists were placed in a bunker in Death Valley. Their goal: to make a car that could find its own fuel source from what is available. A car that could repair itself of minor problems and know when to go to a service station for harder jobs. A car that could clean its own lights, follow the road all on its own without a lot of driver intervention and could plan the best routes as well as come up with alternative routes.

Meanwhile... Outside the desert, several storms were brewing through those 50 years. Debris was deposited and lightening struck the piles.
Some of the sand blowing was also struck by lightening forming perfect glass with few blemishes. When the scientists finally came up with their plans for the perfect car, there in the desert sand was the automobile, with even more incredible features that evolutions of storms came up with all by chance.

I can't get anybody to believe this 'true' story, yet I'm to think I have eyes perfect for 3-D vision, hear in stereo, smell between good and bad, taste buds that tell me what is good as well as what not to eat, senses that carry vast information for processing on a super computer, all from a random storm in a primordial pool.

If a car story is 'so obvious as to be unbelievable' why ain't I?

"Because you're organic stupid."

Yeah, that seems to make me amazingly more complex, no?

...nevermind, I know: Building a DNA chain in a petri dish, right?

I used to believe that life came into existence on it's own by chance in a ancient earth. Chemicals reacting together and eventually turning into living cells that later developed into more complex living creatures.

Looking back... that just sounds silly.

The insane complexity of life in the most simple living cell baffles the mind. All of the working parts and blueprint of functionality contained in a living cell is far beyond what random chance could ever dream of producing.

The only logical and reasonable explanation is that an intelligent, supernatural God created life.

 

[CabinetMaker]

.Life was implanted on the earth by celestial beings and subsequently evolved into what we have today.

We are one of many inhabited planets in a vast, created, friendly and divinely managed universe.

In 1955 a massive revelation occurred which is the 5th such revelation to our world. In it the evolutionary history of our roughly 4.5 billion year old planet is explained in detail. Life was initiated 550 million years ago. Man with "will consciousness" came into being about 1 million years ago.

Much much more is explained in the revelation.

enjoy http://www.truthbook.com/



caino

Then the revelation was incomplete in the extreme. This does not explain how life came into existence, it merely removes the question to a remote location. So in your world view, how did the very first life ever, regardless of where, come into existence?

 

[Tambora]

Colossians 1
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

 

[Lovejoy]

Then the revelation was incomplete in the extreme. This does not explain how life came into existence, it merely removes the question to a remote location. So in your world view, how did the very first life ever, regardless of where, come into existence?

Medieval jewish scholars suspected that the revelation might be incomplete. An interesting question that was dealt with by them: did God create all the substrate of existence (from nothing) first, and then organize life, etc., from out of it? That is, as the water in verse 2 of Genesis 1 is not accounted for in verse 1, did absolute creation occur before Genesis, and what we see there is the organization of the universe, and the life in it, from that?

 

[Lovejoy]

.Life was implanted on the earth by celestial beings and subsequently evolved into what we have today.

We are one of many inhabited planets in a vast, created, friendly and divinely managed universe.

In 1955 a massive revelation occurred which is the 5th such revelation to our world. In it the evolutionary history of our roughly 4.5 billion year old planet is explained in detail. Life was initiated 550 million years ago. Man with "will consciousness" came into being about 1 million years ago.

Much much more is explained in the revelation.

enjoy http://www.truthbook.com/



caino

I have a book written by the editors of the Onion called "You are Worthless." It is a parody of the many wonderful self help books we all got to experience back in the '90s. These days, we need a book of that caliber to take on the many books trying to give us hidden truths, like "The Secret." I am going to call it "We Are Full Of Crap, and You Can To! (sic)" No offence, though, I am sure your book is lovely.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Life.
We sort of know what it is when we come across it.
We do not have a precise definition for it.
We do know some of life's effects and attributes.
We do not know if we have encountered all forms it might take.

To say that God "created" life may not be accurate.
Genesis 2:7 (KJV).
I suspect that as God always was, is, and always will be, life always was, is, and always will be.
Life is the essential essence of the Creator.
Would I say that God created life?
No, I would say that God created living beings.

 

[chrysostom]

life is good
and
God did it

 

[Selaphiel]

The same way the perfect car came into existence:

50 years ago, a bunch of scientists were placed in a bunker in Death Valley. Their goal: to make a car that could find its own fuel source from what is available. A car that could repair itself of minor problems and know when to go to a service station for harder jobs. A car that could clean its own lights, follow the road all on its own without a lot of driver intervention and could plan the best routes as well as come up with alternative routes.

Meanwhile... Outside the desert, several storms were brewing through those 50 years. Debris was deposited and lightening struck the piles.
Some of the sand blowing was also struck by lightening forming perfect glass with few blemishes. When the scientists finally came up with their plans for the perfect car, there in the desert sand was the automobile, with even more incredible features that evolutions of storms came up with all by chance.

I can't get anybody to believe this 'true' story, yet I'm to think I have eyes perfect for 3-D vision, hear in stereo, smell between good and bad, taste buds that tell me what is good as well as what not to eat, senses that carry vast information for processing on a super computer, all from a random storm in a primordial pool.

If a car story is 'so obvious as to be unbelievable' why ain't I?

"Because you're organic stupid."

Yeah, that seems to make me amazingly more complex, no?

...nevermind, I know: Building a DNA chain in a petri dish, right?

It is a false analogy, it is that simple:

-Mechanical parts do not hold the potential for chemical reactions and formation of more complex parts. Organic compounds do and experiments have shown that basic organic compounds could form in the conditions of the early earth.

-No one is suggesting that DNA was the first molecule to form, DNA by itself is useless since it requires transcription which means it requires RNA polymerase and ribosomes to make protein based on the RNA.

What is suggested is that primitive chemical molecules capable of reproduction and metabolism formed within simple membrane like structures, similar to liposomes. Interestingly, also these primitive membranes could form under the conditions of the early earth, this is also demonstrated with experiments.

This is just one hypothesis among many.
One thing is for sure at least, criticizing abiogenesis and evolution with misrepresentation and ignorance will not get you anywhere. Saying God did it is not an explanation, you can say it as a claim of ultimate responsibility, but claiming it is a direct explanation is simply just another God of the gaps which is horrible theology and horrible science.
You can't really laugh when people ask you to define life, because life is not easy to define and what is life is an ongoing debate in biology.

 

[Stripe]

This is just one hypothesis among many.

Having a lot of ideas ain't evidence of anything. :nono:

One thing is for sure at least, criticizing abiogenesis and evolution with misrepresentation and ignorance will not get you anywhere.

And defending them with just-so stories gets you nowhere either.

Saying God did it is not an explanation

Yes, it is.

you can say it as a claim of ultimate responsibility

The only reason to do it your way is to introduce something else that is also responsible. And .. there isn't anything else.

but claiming it is a direct explanation is simply just another God of the gaps which is horrible theology and horrible science.

In the beginning God created the Earth and everything on it. Theology sounds fine to me. How is the science bad?

You can't really laugh when people ask you to define life, because life is not easy to define and what is life is an ongoing debate in biology.

:rotfl:

:mock: Biologogists.

 

[Selaphiel]

Having a lot of ideas ain't evidence of anything

Ideas supported by experiments. It is proven that simply lipid based membranes can form in the conditions present on earth at that time, in fact they occur quite frequently.
The same is true about the fundamental basic organic compounds.

Besides, your statement is kind of funny when it comes from one who considers citing Gen 1:1 to be evidence.

And defending them with just-so stories gets you nowhere either.

Plausible scenarios supported by experiments are not just-so stories.

Yes, it is.

No, because it is simply used as a replacement explanation as in we do not know yet so we attribute it to God, that is the definition of God of the gaps a form of theology that has failed so many times before.

In the beginning God created the Earth and everything on it. Theology sounds fine to me. How is the science bad?

Your simplistic reading of Genesis as history in the modern sense does not prove anything. In fact, if you are going to read Genesis absolutely literally, looking at the exact meaning of the Hebrew you will end up with something so primitive that not even YECists could support it The science is bad because it is not science, it is not supported by any evidence, it is not even verifiable by the methods of science.

:rotfl:

Laugh it away all you want Stripe. After all the non-sense I have seen you spout, your opinion carries no weight for me.

But by all means, keep thinking that you are right. I have pretty much given up on YECists, nothing will convince them that they are wrong, they have simply chosen to be fanatics and live in ignorance to avoid having their world view challenged.

 

[Stripe]

Ideas supported by experiments.

Multiple ideas supported by evidence does not make it more likely that your explanation is better than the bible's. Afterall, all but one of all explanations is incorrect.

It is proven that simply lipid based membranes can form in the conditions present on earth at that time, in fact they occur quite frequently. The same is true about the fundamental basic organic compounds.

And the core of the Earth is nickel and iron. :idunno:

Besides, your statement is kind of funny when it comes from one who considers citing Gen 1:1 to be evidence.

Genesis 1:1 is an explanation.

No, because it is simply used as a replacement explanation as in we do not know yet

Actually, we do know. God wrote it in a book.

Your simplistic reading of Genesis as history in the modern sense does not prove anything.

Never said it did. :idunno:

In fact, if you are going to read Genesis absolutely literally, looking at the exact meaning of the Hebrew you will end up with something so primitive that not even YECists could support it

Fortunately I'm not interested in your whacky understanding of simple concepts. :up:

The science is bad because it is not science, it is not supported by any evidence, it is not even verifiable by the methods of science.

What part of Genesis 1 is not supported by science?

 

[Selaphiel]

Multiple ideas supported by evidence does not make it more likely that your explanation is better than the bible's. Afterall, all but one of all explanations is incorrect.

Utter non-sense. Ideas supported by evidence will always be better than those who aren't supported by any evidence. Just because there currently is not one singular theory or hypothesis does not mean that there won't be in the future when more research has been conducted.
Have to start somewhere. And I believe the history of science is sufficient evidence to think that science tends to progress from that somewhere to more and more accurate descriptions.

Genesis 1:1 is an explanation.

So is saying that space mutants from the planet Zogg planted life on earth. Question is, is it supported by any evidence? Another question is whether the text was read historically by early Christians. Your reading of Genesis is neither scientific nor orthodox.

Fortunately I'm not interested in your whacky understanding of simple concepts.

Translation: I'm not interested in anything that can challenge my world view, because that could shatter my faith.
Nothing is simple when it comes to translate 2500 year old texts written in a completely different culture with a completely different language.

What part of Genesis 1 is not supported by science?

All of it, it is not even a scientific statement to begin with.

 

[Stripe]

Ideas supported by evidence will always be better than those who aren't supported by any evidence.

Which a statement utterly alien to the one I made. Why do atheists so love to argue against things people do not say? :idunno:

And let's see. Which explanation is it that has no evidence for it?

Just because there currently is not one singular theory or hypothesis does not mean that there won't be in the future when more research has been conducted.

Let us know when you have something. :up:

And I believe the history of science is sufficient evidence to think that science tends to progress from that somewhere to more and more accurate descriptions.

And sometimes it needs to just accept the truth. :up:

So is saying that space mutants from the planet Zogg planted life on earth. Question is, is it supported by any evidence?

Nope.

Another question is whether the text was read historically by early Christians.

Not really. What is important is how it was written by the authors.

All of it, it is not even a scientific statement to begin with.

So when God said He made living things according to their kind and to reproduce according to their kind, that is not scientific, how exactly?

 

[Zeke]

Matthew 1:20, This is Life, Life is Spirit, and can mingle with any thing and give it life.

Colossians 1:18, is when it began for us.

Grace, Zeke.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Which a statement utterly alien to the one I made. Why do atheists so love to argue against things people do not say? :idunno:

Why can't you recognize that Selaphiel is a Christian? Either your observational skills are sadly lacking or....well who knows what....lain:

And let's see. Which explanation is it that has no evidence for it?

A six thousand year old earth? Literally interpreting a passage in the bible is not 'evidence'.

Let us know when you have something. :up:

Between Sela, Alate, PB and noguru amongst others, you've had a whole lot more than 'something' already.

And sometimes it needs to just accept the truth. :up:

Which is what happens when scientific theory becomes scientific fact, such as the law of gravity etc. It doesn't mean the rigid adherence to a young earth and then trying to fit 'science' into your own world view.

Nope.Not really. What is important is how it was written by the authors.

Which Sela has addressed and you're just not listening.

So when God said He made living things according to their kind and to reproduce according to their kind, that is not scientific, how exactly?

It's not exactly going into any details is it?