[dsade]

Originally Posted by CNorris

Charles Darwin's explanation of the conditions that formed life: "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".

I have also seen this explanation for the origins of life in the evolution chapter of my Biology book in High School and College. This origins of life need be be explained by evolution, or all evolutionists could believe in intelligent design. Whats to say they cant claim that god planted life on the planet, then it evolved. That is what many prominent Intelligent Designists believe. Last I checked Evolitionists furiously oppose intelligent design.

Why not plastic animated unicorns? Why not believe like Heironymous Bosch that life and existence is traversing the devil's digestive system? Why not believe that we are all just the daydream of a gnat about to be squashed by the TRUE center of the universe....plankton.

Evolutionists (IME) are scientific in nature. Since there is no proof for the existence of god, they reject it as "not enough information to make a decision". Hypotheses about HOW life began are suggested, and we look for evidence to disprove them.

I am sure there are evolutionists who might believe in god...but it is at the expense of scientific credibility, for the most part.

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by dsade

Why not plastic animated unicorns? Why not believe like Heironymous Bosch that life and existence is traversing the devil's digestive system? Why not believe that we are all just the daydream of a gnat about to be squashed by the TRUE center of the universe....plankton.

Evolutionists (IME) are scientific in nature. Since there is no proof for the existence of god, they reject it as "not enough information to make a decision". Hypotheses about HOW life began are suggested, and we look for evidence to disprove them.

I am sure there are evolutionists who might believe in god...but it is at the expense of scientific credibility, for the most part.

A plastic animated unicorn is as likely to have created life as is lightning striking a chemical bath, as evolutionists teach and believe. Read any school book on evolution. Its what they teach. This belief and teaching is at the expense of scientific credibility as well.

What is science is being able to recognize highly orderly, and irreducibly complex systems. If you received a signal from outer space that was the entire dictionary word for word, you wouldn't assume its by chance. It is however that event is more likely to occur than life having formed randomly. Every bit of observed evidence suggest both ideas are not only unscientific but statistically impossible. Evolutionists cant explain how a hollowed out limb that cant fly or walk became an advantage for a life form, let alone how a wing could become evolved enough to perform the incredibly complex task of taking flight. Evolution is not scientific, its an absurd theoretical reach to explain something that is unexplainable.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by CNorris

Charles Darwin's explanation of the conditions that formed life: "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".

I have also seen this explanation for the origins of life in the evolution chapter of my Biology book in High School and College. This origins of life need be be explained by evolution, or all evolutionists could believe in intelligent design. Whats to say they cant claim that god planted life on the planet, then it evolved. That is what many prominent Intelligent Designists believe. Last I checked Evolitionists furiously oppose intelligent design.

They oppose intelligent design because intelligent design said all species here now were created as is and that nothing ever evolved.

Intelligent design ain't intelligent. It's the kind of stuff I'd expect a 6 year old kid to come up with to explain things. I mean, no offense, but it's really silly. It's pretty weird that sane adults believe that stuff. Might as well believe goldilocks and the 3 bears or Rumplestiltzskin or something.

And the whole argument about creation is like "what you don't have an explaination yet? That proves Santa Claus created life using a super laser beam and magical condoms!"

[dsade]

Originally Posted by CNorris

A plastic animated unicorn is as likely to have created life as is lightning striking a chemical bath, as evolutionists teach and believe. Read any school book on evolution. Its what they teach. This belief and teaching is at the expense of scientific credibility as well.

What is science is being able to recognize highly orderly, and irreducibly complex systems. If you received a signal from outer space that was the entire dictionary word for word, you wouldn't assume its by chance. It is however that event is more likely to occur than life having formed randomly. Every bit of observed evidence suggest both ideas are not only unscientific but statistically impossible. Evolutionists cant explain how a hollowed out limb that cant fly or walk became an advantage for a life form, let alone how a wing could become evolved enough to perform the incredibly complex task of taking flight. Evolution is not scientific, its an absurd theoretical reach to explain something that is unexplainable.

These have been dealt with countless times. Do your homework.

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by dsade

These have been dealt with countless times. Do your homework.

Dealt with? Wow. Tell me why the fossil record shows rapid and sudden changes boom out of nowhere millions of years ago, where the previous millions of years adaption was completely stagnant? How does this follow the basic tenant of evolution that life slowly and steadily evolved into what it is today. The problems with evolution are not dealt with. Scientists however have been able to successfully lie and present myths as truth to convince the simple minded sheep to have faith in the most baseless theory in science.

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

They oppose intelligent design because intelligent design said all species here now were created as is and that nothing ever evolved.

Intelligent design ain't intelligent. It's the kind of stuff I'd expect a 6 year old kid to come up with to explain things. I mean, no offense, but it's really silly. It's pretty weird that sane adults believe that stuff. Might as well believe goldilocks and the 3 bears or Rumplestiltzskin or something.

And the whole argument about creation is like "what you don't have an explaination yet? That proves Santa Claus created life using a super laser beam and magical condoms!"

Did you read my explanation on why it is absolutely absurd anyone can believe in the random formation of life? If you have and still are brainwashed into not even being able to be objective, open minded and scientific then there is no hope for you. There is absolutely NO evidence that life forming randomly even being remotely possible. This is infinately more absurd in saying that life looks as if it has been created, and there is no explanation for its existance, so I will believe it has been created. No one claims that it is a scientific belief, but believing in something that is scientifically proven impossible is even worse. You stick to your childish name calling and Santa Clause comparisons because you cant debate like a rational open minded human being. No evolutionist can debate the origins of life. The cant explain how a fish turned into a bird either, so they resort to discrediting people, lying and name calling. Sounds childish to me. Also, species adapting within a group of dogs/birds does not explain how a pile of goo became a dog/bird. Science cant even explain the existence of a protein, let alone a damn bird.

[dsade]

So obviously since we cannot explain sufficiently yet, it must have been created by an invisible, all powerful man in the sky?

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by dsade

So obviously since we cannot explain sufficiently yet, it must have been created by an invisible, all powerful man in the sky?

Some people would arrive at that conclusion. I wish I could arrive at some conclusion other than lightning striking a chemical bath and creating life is impossible, and Adam and Eve didn't create all humans. Both of those beliefs take a lot of blind faith.

[dsade]

How about a healthy, skeptical "I don't know"?

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by dsade

How about a healthy, skeptical "I don't know"?

I wouldn't have a problem if more scientists say that. But for them to act like life was inevitable is not scientific. I don't know how many time I've heard the theory that life should be all over the universe because its inevitable if there is another planet like earth. The exact opposite is true. Its a miracle that life exists anywhere. If scientists were honest more of them would say "I don't know"

Darwin theorized about evolution before we had any clue about the extreme complexity of life. Back in Darwin's time, they thought cells were basically atoms, and organs were molecules. Its too bad the science on the origins of life hasn't advance to compensate for our new knowledge.

[anabolicrhino]

Darwin was a "gate keeper" He tried to keep mankind from the real truth- Alien intervention! DNA splicing hybrid humanoid species!

ancient astronauts

genetic manipulation

...of course you file this under I don't know? maybe !

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by CNorris

Some people would arrive at that conclusion. I wish I could arrive at some conclusion other than lightning striking a chemical bath and creating life is impossible, and Adam and Eve didn't create all humans. Both of those beliefs take a lot of blind faith.

The Adam and Eve thing doesn't take faith, man. It takes willful ignorance. There's a difference. I think.

And what's with the "lightning striking a chemical bath" thing? No scientist thinks that is what happened as far as I know. I suppose you could find one but that doesn't make it the standard. Fact is there is no standard theory on how life initially formed. You saying scientists haven't said "I don't know" is also ignorant. That's what scientists say about ANYTHING they haven't proven.

Look just cus you don't know something doesn't mean you can't test out a theory. But you cna't have a theory if you can't test it. At the very least it has to be mathematically testable. "Poof, there it is!" ain't testable.

I don't know what the current theorIES are on how life started. Heck first off you have to start by saying what life actually is cus it's kind of an arbitrary thing we've defined. So are species. We created the concept of species in order to catelog **** easier.


As for the whole random thing, turns out that we aren't the first universe. Some guy just developed a time model using "quantum loop dynamics" or something that can model the "big bang". Turns out all the constants in the universe, like the charge on an electron, the charge on a proton, and even what particles exist was likely completely different before the big bang. Same with before that and before that. This new model shows that we're likely the aftermath of an infinite chain of collapses and expantions. This time things turned out such that you've got life. Hard to predict what happened before. For example if the charge on an electron was higher, no black holes would be posisble and stars would never collpase. If it was lower, stars would never form; they would collapse immediately into black holes.


Anywya, I read a long article about it. It's pretty out there and gave me a headache. But that whole "random chance was too slim a chance" is about as bogus an argument as it gets. People win the lottery too even though those chances are slim, and with seeing as how now it looks like we've had an inifnite number of universes before us, seems even more "likely" we'd eventually wind up with this "version" of the universe. Actually it means it was inevitable.

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

The Adam and Eve thing doesn't take faith, man. It takes willful ignorance. There's a difference. I think.

It also takes willful ignorance and dishonesty to spread the lie that the formation of life is inevitable, and it must exist all over the galaxy. This is the willful ignorance scientests spew every single day. Also did you know that scientists now believe that all humans have common ancestors from a single tribe in Africa? It was in TIME magazine.

And what's with the "lightning striking a chemical bath" thing? No scientist thinks that is what happened as far as I know.

Darwin suggested that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".

Also, this is EXACTLY how they explain the origins of life in my Biology text book in college. They claim that lightning struck a chemical bath and formed amino acids. This is possible, but if you read my explanation on the chemical formation of life, it becomes very clear that anyone that believes this is hardly a scientist.

I suppose you could find one but that doesn't make it the standard.

No I can find many and it is the common standard. Chemical systems do not move from lower energy to higher energy without the input of energy. There really is no other naturalistic explanation on how a low order chemical system became the most high energy checmical system that occurs natrually on this planet.

Fact is there is no standard theory on how life initially formed. You saying scientists haven't said "I don't know" is also ignorant. That's what scientists say about ANYTHING they haven't proven.

Look just cus you don't know something doesn't mean you can't test out a theory. But you cna't have a theory if you can't test it. At the very least it has to be mathematically testable. "Poof, there it is!" ain't testable.

Exactly. Which is still why the origins of life have not been proved by any theory. "Poof, there it is!" is what happened. It is impossible for life to have gradually naturally formed according to all of our observable scientific laws. This is why scientists are so desperate to find life on another planet, because every single failed experiment and every observation of chemistry and the basic laws of thermodynamics show that there is no possible way for an incredibly complex and irreducibly complex chemical system to have formed naturally.

I don't know what the current theorIES are on how life started. Heck first off you have to start by saying what life actually is cus it's kind of an arbitrary thing we've defined. So are species. We created the concept of species in order to catelog **** easier.

I have no clue what you are trying to say here. Life is amazingly complex. A single cell goes is infinitely complex than any computer sytem man has created. The human brain is the biggest mystery and the most complex thing on this planet. Our definition of life and categorizing of species has no relevance to this conversation. We are talking about the formation of life and the evolution of a bird into a fish. Not how a fish with round fins became a fish with sharp fins.


As for the whole random thing, turns out that we aren't the first universe. Some guy just developed a time model using "quantum loop dynamics" or something that can model the "big bang". Turns out all the constants in the universe, like the charge on an electron, the charge on a proton, and even what particles exist was likely completely different before the big bang. Same with before that and before that. This new model shows that we're likely the aftermath of an infinite chain of collapses and expantions. This time things turned out such that you've got life. Hard to predict what happened before. For example if the charge on an electron was higher, no black holes would be posisble and stars would never collpase. If it was lower, stars would never form; they would collapse immediately into black holes.

There are countless theories. I have heard ones where there are 13 dimensions, and the big bang happened because of two or more of these dimensions colliding. These are fascinating but all unproven. The big bang has nothing to do with the formation of life.

Anywya, I read a long article about it. It's pretty out there and gave me a headache. But that whole "random chance was too slim a chance" is about as bogus an argument as it gets. People win the lottery too even though those chances are slim, and with seeing as how now it looks like we've had an inifnite number of universes before us, seems even more "likely" we'd eventually wind up with this "version" of the universe. Actually it means it was inevitable.

If you dont believe the chance of life forming is not only slim, but one of the most improbable things on this earth you are either blinded by your faith in evolution, or you just dont understand chemistry. Please read the explanation of what a cell is formed up of, read about the cell and all its group functions and try to imaging the chemical framework and structures that underly everything. It is the most improbable thing on this planet. It is equivalent to a print house in the renaissance days exploding, and a dictionary resulting in the explosion. The chance is that remote and it is so unlikely it has been proven mathematically impossible. Any other event with a probability that low would be deemed impossible, but since there is no natural explanation of life, scientists believe the impossible. The difference is a person who believes in god will tell you they have faith. A scientist wont admit their faith. And the scientist will be lying.

.............................

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by CNorris

.............................

Can you please just use the damn quote feature?

[ quote] insert here [ /quote]


Anyway if you're going to reject science, then please stop using the fruits of its labor. Just pray to god or something and have fiath he'll magically conjure **** for you. While you're at it, make sure you continue to pray that God keeps you placed on the earth instead of letting you magically drift off the planet. You know, cus that whole "theory of gravity" is just a theory too. Which mean in your mind its wrong. Because you seem to have faith that scientific theories are all wrong. You seem to be assured that the answer to every last thing is "god did it."

Why don't you be a little less boring and come up with something a little more snazzy. Like "The snuffaluffagous did it."

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Can you please just use the damn quote feature?

[ quote] insert here [ /quote]


Anyway if you're going to reject science, then please stop using the fruits of its labor. Just pray to god or something and have fiath he'll magically conjure **** for you. While you're at it, make sure you continue to pray that God keeps you placed on the earth instead of letting you magically drift off the planet. You know, cus that whole "theory of gravity" is just a theory too. Which mean in your mind its wrong. Because you seem to have faith that scientific theories are all wrong. You seem to be assured that the answer to every last thing is "god did it."

Why don't you be a little l