The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution

[Government_Controlled]

actually I have..but thats not the point.your saying you need proof regarding transitional fossils yet you don't need proof of creation.Right?...

It is the point for me. And yes, I do need proof of creation. The Bible provides that, also life itself attest to it. To much design in the world. Also, review the post regarding origin of life. The odds are just to staggering, to accept it all started without a designer/intellect.

I mean no more proof than a book & some preachers to back it up..Am I correct in this?If not please elaborate.

I have studied the Bible for around 17 years now, and yet have been able to find it in error. What the main problem with these "preachers" is, they are not accurate in portraying what the Bible teaches. No wonder people don't trust it. Maybe you could study with someone who really teaches what the Bible says, then make your decision.


GC/DEA_AGENT

[Government_Controlled]

You make it sound like it's that easy to recover fossils. Luck is the number one factor in finding good fossils. There are way too many scenarios to happen for someone to eventually find a fossil. Just think about it.
The critter has to die, it's body cannot be scavenged by other animals, it has to be buried somehow by dirt or mud, or ice, its bones cannot be scattered, it should be buried deep enough that erosion wouldn't get to it before someone finds it, and that someone has to be from our time because people from 1-2 million years ago could care less what it was they were looking at, etc... there are many more scenarios involved. I'm not about to go to that "safe" bet of "creation" considering there are plenty more feasible scenarios.

This just makes my argument more likely. Like you are saying the odds are high for finding fossils to begin with. So, how can they only find the older fossils, and not the younger? Wouldn't the "last"/"younger" transitional fossils be more likely to find being that they should be more abundant?



GC/DEA_AGENT

[Necrosis]

This just makes my argument more likely. Like you are saying the odds are high for finding fossils to begin with. So, how can they only find the older fossils, and not the younger? Wouldn't the "last"/"younger" transitional fossils be more likely to find being that they should be more abundant?



GC/DEA_AGENT

what do you think the odds are of a being more complex then the universe. IF you are saying that the universe is to complex to arisen by chance then you must logically apply this argument to an even more complex being ie god.

your argument doesnt answer anything and clouds the picture more. Everything we have ever discovered started simple, and builds in complexity. look at technology for a microcosm of the universe. Yet you want to place a super complex being creating simple, basically rearranging the process. There are two arguments why your argument makes no sense.

To top it off, the fact that one thing may be wrong, doesnt make another right. The default position is not god. Also, complexity isnt an argument for your god in particular to begin with and using the bible as proof of the bible is circular logic to the core.

the odds dont matter. in fact there is a good video of a mathematician explaining probability that you might want to view, ill see if i can find it. It reminds me of the plane in a junkyard argument that get debunked over and over.

so if the universe based on complexity beegs creation, then a more complex being ie god does to, you cant have it both ways.

[Joel_A]

This just makes my argument more likely. Like you are saying the odds are high for finding fossils to begin with. So, how can they only find the older fossils, and not the younger? Wouldn't the "last"/"younger" transitional fossils be more likely to find being that they should be more abundant?



GC/DEA_AGENT

You have some reading comprehension problems. Either that or you're purposely not reading what I'm typing.

I already stated why.

[Government_Controlled]

This just makes my argument more likely. Like you are saying the odds are high for finding fossils to begin with. So, how can they only find the older fossils, and not the younger? Wouldn't the "last"/"younger" transitional fossils be more likely to find being that they should be more abundant?


GC/DEA_AGENT

what do you think the odds are of a being more complex then the universe. IF you are saying that the universe is to complex to arisen by chance then you must logically apply this argument to an even more complex being ie god.

I do, God is more complex.

your argument doesnt answer anything and clouds the picture more. Everything we have ever discovered started simple, and builds in complexity. look at technology for a microcosm of the universe.

I don't understand how you can say that. The simplest life form, is loaded with complexity.

To top it off, the fact that one thing may be wrong, doesnt make another right.

True, however I wasn't trying to conclude that is the case. My point is that evolution is not possible, especially when abiogenesis couldn't have happened. Of course I'm going to default to God, simply because I believe in His existence.

Even if I wasn't a believer in God, my points are good. There is still no way that evolution (macro) is a possibility. I would have to look for some other vehicle.

The default position is not god. Also, complexity isnt an argument for your god in particular to begin with and using

It is for a believer. If your not a believer, then you have to search for some other way that life originated. Evolution isn't plausible.

the bible as proof of the bible is circular logic to the core.

If you haven't studied the bible with the attitude I had mentioned earlier, then how can you be so sure about what the Bible teaches.

However, I'm not using the Bible to prove the Bible. Where did you get that from? The truth is that Christians find the Bible's viewpoint on basic facts to be logical and in harmony with observable realities. Again, I encourage you to study it in depth, and with a open mind.

the odds dont matter. 

It should when they are outrageously astronomical.

so if the universe based on complexity beegs creation, then a more complex being ie god does to, you cant have it both ways.

Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it. Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it. (2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe into the universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God.

Other examples: (1) Astronomers tell us that the heat of the sun at its core is 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit (15,000,000° C.). Do we reject that idea because we cannot fully comprehend such intense heat? (2) They tell us that the size of our Milky Way is so great that a beam of light traveling at over 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/sec) would require 100,000 years to cross it. Do our minds really comprehend such a distance? Yet we accept it because scientific evidence supports it.

Which is more reasonable ---that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction? Some persons adopt the latter viewpoint because to believe otherwise would mean that they would have to acknowledge the existence of a Creator whose qualities they cannot fully comprehend. But it is well known that scientists do not fully comprehend the functioning of the genes that are within living cells and that determine how these cells will grow. Nor do they fully understand the functioning of the human brain. Yet, who would deny that these exist? Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that he could bring into existence the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?
 

So, where are these "younger/last step transitional fossils? They should be more abundant due to the fact that they would HAVE been the last fossil to have formed? How can they only find older fossils, which create huge gaps between these species?


GC/DEA_AGENT

[Government_Controlled]

This just makes my argument more likely. Like you are saying the odds are high for finding fossils to begin with. So, how can they only find the older fossils, and not the younger? Wouldn't the "last"/"younger" transitional fossils be more likely to find being that they should be more abundant?

You have some reading comprehension problems. Either that or you're purposely not reading what I'm typing.

I already stated why.

Where?



GC/DEA_AGENt

[Government_Controlled]

look at technology for a microcosm of the universe.

What is your reasoning on this? How are you seeing technology as being a microcosm of the universe. Just curious.



GC/DEA_AGENt

[Dos Equis]

no it proves that humans can have two heads , however, the other skulls of humans and the study of anatomy allows us to make inferences, your simplistic view is entirely inccorect. We know the structure of the human skeleton and possible deformities, we also know homology of tons of other animals, which are quite similar.

You do not need the entire fossil record because, one, that is impossible, two we could already have every fossil as fossils are hard to come by, and the corroborating evidence confounds the fossil record.

we have hundreds of transitional fossils, clear exmaples of macroevolution etc..

let me geuss the guy who wrote this book is religious?

Actually, what's simplistic is the view that if you find one fossil you can make an assumption about macroevolution of multiple species.  Makes no sense, at least from a scientific standpoint. 

No, the guy who wrote the book isn't religious.  But so what if he was?  He doesn't talk about religion at all in his book.  He believes the earth is billions of years old.  You should try broadening your horizons and read the book.  It will challenge much of what we have been taught and believe about life on earth. 

[Dos Equis]

what theory?

evolution says nothing about origins, the whole title of this thread is incorrect, and you further the ignorance by making a claim.

abiogenesis is the study of origins a totally seperate theory.

Pure hair splitting.  Sounds to me like there is no scientific theory for the origin of life on earth.   

[loco]

Richard Dawkins said aliens from outer space came to earth and planted the goo from which the first single cell emerged, from which all living things later evolved.

[Necrosis]

Richard Dawkins said aliens from outer space came to earth and planted the goo from which the first single cell emerged, from which all living things later evolved.

jesus not you to, he said it is more of a possibility then a ultra powerful god creating life from nothing.

[Necrosis]

Pure hair splitting.  Sounds to me like there is no scientific theory for the origin of life on earth.   

ive given you one, which has shown to work theoretically. You are unwillingly to accept anything other then god, admit this to yourself at least, you are completely closed minded. You think that god is an appropriate hypothesis meanwhile everything on earth screams at you, there is no god.

You come up with weird rationalizations to make it fit, but it never will and when all else fails you claim faith as if it makes you immune to justification.

evolution is not abiogenesis, you asking for evolution to supply the answer is like asking gravity to supply the answer.

[Government_Controlled]

ive given you one, which has shown to work theoretically. You are unwillingly to accept anything other then god, admit this to yourself at least, you are completely closed minded. You think that god is an appropriate hypothesis meanwhile everything on earth screams at you, there is no god.

You come up with weird rationalizations to make it fit, but it never will and when all else fails you claim faith as if it makes you immune to justification.

evolution is not abiogenesis, you asking for evolution to supply the answer is like asking gravity to supply the answer.

You said that abiogenesis HAD to happen first, remember? I don't know, maybe you are ahead of the times here, however, there is a source, besides Christians that disagree with you.

no problem,sorry if i come across as a dick, i am.

but yes, abiogenesis would have to come first.

"–noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation." ---   Dictionary.com

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=213504.msg4178984#msg4178984


GC/DEA_AGENT

[loco]

jesus not you to, he said it is more of a possibility then a ultra powerful god creating life from nothing.

No, that's not what he said.  The video has been posted here before.  He said that aliens from outer space came to earth and planted the goo from which the first single cell emerged, from which all living things later evolved.  And he said that those aliens themselves would have evolved in the same way that all living things on earth have.

[big L dawg]

No, that's not what he said.  The video has been posted here before.  He said that aliens from outer space came to earth and planted the goo from which the first single cell emerged, from which all living things later evolved.  And he said that those aliens themselves would have evolved in the same way that all living things on earth have.

I would actually believe that b 4 I would the fairy tails Christians believe.

[loco]

I would actually believe that b 4 I would the fairy tails Christians believe.

It's okay, big dog!  Nobody is perfect!

[MCWAY]

No, that's not what he said.  The video has been posted here before.  He said that aliens from outer space came to earth and planted the goo from which the first single cell emerged, from which all living things later evolved.  And he said that those aliens themselves would have evolved in the same way that all living things on earth have.

Please say you're joking, Loco!!. You mean to tell me, that the atheist poster-boy-flavor-of-the-month, Mr. Logic-and-Reason, who (to skeptics) is tantamount to what the Jonas Brothers are to pre-teen girls, believes that alien goo randomly evolved into life on Earth?

And, this guy has the gall to take potshots at Creationists? <<<<pause for hysterical, belly-busting laughter>>>>

I've heard of "Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo". But, forget the cake; this takes the whole darn bakery.

I would actually believe that b 4 I would the fairy tails Christians believe.

The words is, "TALES", Rhodes scholar!! And what Christians believe are anything but that.

[loco]

Please say you're joking, Loco!!. You mean to tell me, that the atheist poster-boy-flavor-of-the-month, Mr. Logic-and-Reason, who (to skeptics) is tantamount to what the Jonas Brothers are to pre-teen girls, believes that alien goo randomly evolved into life on Earth?

And, this guy has the gall to take potshots at Creationists? <<<<pause for hysterical, belly-busting laughter>>>>

I've heard of "Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo". But, forget the cake; this takes the whole darn bakery.

The words is, "TALES", Rhodes scholar!! And what Christians believe are anything but that.

I'm not joking, MCWAY!  I don't remember the exact words, but that's pretty much what he said.  He then rushed to his website RichardDawkins.net to defend and to explain to his fans what he had said on the video. 

I thought you had seen the video before.  I'll see if I can dig it up and re-post it.

[MCWAY]

I'm not joking, MCWAY!  I don't remember the exact words, but that's pretty much what he said.  He then rushed to his website RichardDawkins.net to defend and to explain to his fans what he had said on the video. 

I thought you had seen the video before.  I'll see if I can dig it up and re-post it.

That, along with comment like those from L Dawg, just verify that this issue isn't so much about science. It's about PHILOSOPHY, namely a God-centered philosophy vs. a man-centered one.

The mere fact that they would believe in "goo" from aliens (who don't hold them accountable for their actions and behavior and don't have any standards of right and wrong), shows that their beef lied with Scripture and with religious institutions. We know that's a fact with Dawkins, based on several factors, among them unfortunately his being molested by a parishoner.

[Necrosis]

That, along with comment like those from L Dawg, just verify that this issue isn't so much about science. It's about PHILOSOPHY, namely a God-centered philosophy vs. a man-centered one.

The mere fact that they would believe in "goo" from aliens (who don't hold them accountable for their actions and behavior and don't have any standards of right and wrong), shows that their beef lied with Scripture and with religious institutions. We know that's a fact with Dawkins, based on several factors, among them unfortunately his being molested by a parishoner.

why do you make the pressumption that we are held accountable? you guys are missing his point as usual, it is infinitly more likey that if life was created here, aliens that live in the universe are themore likely candidates for obvious reasons.

[MCWAY]

why do you make the pressumption that we are held accountable? you guys are missing his point as usual, it is infinitly more likey that if life was created here, aliens that live in the universe are themore likely candidates for obvious reasons.

The "obvious reasons" are your disdain for Scripture and for the existence of God.

The point you are missing is that there is but little difference between the belief that aliens dropped "goo" on this planey and the belief that God created live on this planet, in that BOTH hold that a being higher than man is responsible for life on Earth.

Again, aliens don't have commandments and laws; nor do they hold you accountable for such. That's why Dawkins would rather make his alien claim.

[big L dawg]

you don't need Scripture or commandments to live a decent life and be a good person....I'm just good for goodness sake.

[Dos Equis]

ive given you one, which has shown to work theoretically. You are unwillingly to accept anything other then god, admit this to yourself at least, you are completely closed minded. You think that god is an appropriate hypothesis meanwhile everything on earth screams at you, there is no god.

You come up with weird rationalizations to make it fit, but it never will and when all else fails you claim faith as if it makes you immune to justification.

evolution is not abiogenesis, you asking for evolution to supply the answer is like asking gravity to supply the answer.

You have given me a theory called abiogenesis, which hasn't been observed in a lab, has not been tested, and cannot be proved. 

And there you go bringing up God and religion again.  You and people who share your beliefs simply cannot discuss this issue without bringing up God and religion.  Is it really that hard to discuss your faith-based belief in the origin of life on earth without bringing up God, the Bible, etc.?   

[loco]

Richard Dawkins: "A higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe" possibly designed and seeded a form of life into this planet.

[MCWAY]

you don't need Scripture or commandments to live a decent life and be a good person....I'm just good for goodness sake.

"Good" as defined by whom or what? In order for you or anyone else to be deemed "good" vs. "bad", there must be a certain standard, against which such is measured.

The issue here is that the alien 'goo' proponents don't particularly care for the prospect of a being accountable to a being higher than themselves.