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

[Dos Equis]

What is the scientific explanation for how life began according to the theory of evolution? 

[Deicide]

What is the scientific explanation for how life began according to the theory of evolution? 

There is none. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.  And we have said this many, many times.

Don't pull your 'troll' nonsense here. Read it again. Evolution makes no claims about abiogenesis.

[tonymctones]

There is none. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.  And we have said this many, many times.

Don't pull your 'troll' nonsense here. Read it again. Evolution makes no claims about abiogenesis.

I was going to say the same thing, but i dont know if he was using this to illustrate that evolution is wrong in his mind or that there is no way to create life from nothing as we know it now. Which one is Beach?

[Dos Equis]

I was going to say the same thing, but i dont know if he was using this to illustrate that evolution is wrong in his mind or that there is no way to create life from nothing as we know it now. Which one is Beach?

Neither tony.  Mcway mentioned some believe in spontaneous generation.  That just got me thinking about the question I posed.  I'm really asking about the scientific explanation for the beginning of life on earth according to Darwinists. 

[tonymctones]

Neither tony.  Mcway mentioned some believe in spontaneous generation.  That just got me thinking about the question I posed.  I'm really asking about the scientific explanation for the beginning of life on earth according to Darwinists. 

AHHH in that case there is none...lol that probably doesnt help much but ya...lol, actually im sure there is some postulation about it but i havent ever heard of any

[Dos Equis]

AHHH in that case there is none...lol that probably doesnt help much but ya...lol, actually im sure there is some postulation about it but i havent ever heard of any

Isn't spontaneous generation one? 

[tonymctones]

Isn't spontaneous generation one? 

hmmm no as far as I know darwin actually helped to disprove spontaneous generation. Perhaps Im thinking of another subject but spontaneous generation states that life forms from decaying living materials which wouldnt explain how the living materials came to be in the first place. right?

[Dos Equis]

hmmm no as far as I know darwin actually helped to disprove spontaneous generation. Perhaps Im thinking of another subject but spontaneous generation states that life forms from decaying living materials which wouldnt explain how the living materials came to be in the first place. right?

Nope, sure wouldn't. 

I'm trying to get at what science teaches and what people believe about the origins of life on earth (not including any intelligent design beliefs). 

[Deicide]

Nope, sure wouldn't. 

I'm trying to get at what science teaches and what people believe about the origins of life on earth (not including any intelligent design beliefs). 

Scientists have theories; however the answer to the question of abiogenesis is an unknown one. When scientists don't know something, they admit it. Unlike some people who believe ancient mythology is fact.

[tonymctones]

Nope, sure wouldn't. 

I'm trying to get at what science teaches and what people believe about the origins of life on earth (not including any intelligent design beliefs). 

well to be fair though spontaneous generation has been disproven for sometime now and isnt taught anymore other than maybe a side note.

[tonymctones]

Scientists have theories; however the answer to the question of abiogenesis is an unknown one. When scientists don't know something, they admit it. Unlike some people who believe ancient mythology is fact.

lol LET IT GO BROTHER HAHAHAH

[Deicide]

lol LET IT GO BROTHER HAHAHAH

Let what go? There are many things scientists don't know yet or understand. Does this mean that an ancient Semitic fertility deity is the explanation for these unknown things? Is that the default position?

[tonymctones]

Let what go? There are many things scientists don't know yet or understand. Does this mean that an ancient Semitic fertility deity is the explanation for these unknown things? Is that the default position?

why does it bother you so that people believe in god, god of any kind?
AGAIN the default position is not knowing, not religion and not atheism...are we to believe that everything in this world is arbitrary is that the default position? NOOOOOO its being open to either side

[Dos Equis]

Scientists have theories; however the answer to the question of abiogenesis is an unknown one. When scientists don't know something, they admit it. Unlike some people who believe ancient mythology is fact.

I'm not talking about ancient mythology.  I'm not talking about God.  I'm not talking about religion.  I'm not talking about intelligent design.  I'm talking about the scientific basis for the origin of life on earth and what people believe about the origin of life on earth (outside of intelligent design).  

You say it's unknown.  What do you believe?  

[Deicide]

why does it bother you so that people believe in god, god of any kind?
AGAIN the default position is not knowing, not religion and not atheism...are we to believe that everything in this world is arbitrary is that the default position? NOOOOOO its being open to either side

The very fact that the science of statistics works is indication of the fact that very much in the world in indeed arbitrary.

For the record I don't care that people believe in a god but rather that they have to go around proselytising and preaching, making claims about the origins and development of life that no scientist would ever make.

[tonymctones]

The very fact that the science of statistics works is indication of the fact that very much in the world in indeed arbitrary.

For the record I don't care that people believe in a god but rather that they have to go around proselytising and preaching, making claims about the origins and development of life that no scientist would ever make.

even though things seem arbitrary doesnt mean there isnt something behind it a hurricane might seem arbitrary unless you understand the science behind it, the reasonf for a hurrican might seem arbitrary unless you understand the reasons behind them and so on and so on.
LOL you mean kinda like you do on this board specifically designated for religion, it seems to me that you are the one seeking out the religious ppl not the other way around.

[Deicide]

even though things seem arbitrary doesnt mean there isnt something behind it a hurricane might seem arbitrary unless you understand the science behind it, the reasonf for a hurrican might seem arbitrary unless you understand the reasons behind them and so on and so on.
LOL you mean kinda like you do on this board specifically designated for religion, it seems to me that you are the one seeking out the religious ppl not the other way around.

I have already stated that relgious lunacy is very funny and provides enormous entertainment value.

[tonymctones]

I have already stated that relgious lunacy is very funny and provides enormous entertainment value.

Enormous entertainment to enter into the same arguement time and time again and obtain the same outcome time and time again sounds fairly crazy

[MCWAY]

Neither tony.  Mcway mentioned some believe in spontaneous generation.  That just got me thinking about the question I posed.  I'm really asking about the scientific explanation for the beginning of life on earth according to Darwinists. 

As I’ve said previously and contrary to Deicide's claim, the idea that “evolution doesn’t deal with origin” is (or, at least, was) a falsehood. Origin was addressed, when the theory of evolution was first formulated. But, the tenet behind it (spontaneous generation) was shown to be, at the very least faulty. Yet, many evolutionists (whether they admit it or not) still hold to SG as having occurred. Otherwise, they are left with the one option that don’t float their boat:


The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.

But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” - J. W. N. Sullivan. The Limitations of Science
 
How ironic is it that some atheists, who get on Christians fore believing in things "without scientific evidence", turn right around and do the same thing, when it comes to the origin of life on this planet. It happened then; it still happens now.

[MCWAY]

The very fact that the science of statistics works is indication of the fact that very much in the world in indeed arbitrary.

For the record I don't care that people believe in a god but rather that they have to go around proselytising and preaching, making claims about the origins and development of life that no scientist would ever make.

Instead, some scientists proselytise and preach about accidentally coming from lifeless goo 5-billion years ago, despite lack of evidence that such occured.

I have already stated that relgious lunacy is very funny and provides enormous entertainment value.

You think that's entertaining. Atheist lunacy gives me countless belly laughs, especially the "Jesus-myth" posse. Who else gets discombobulated about Something/Someone they don't believe to exist?

[Decker]

...
 
How ironic is it that some atheists, who get on Christians fore believing in things "without scientific evidence", turn right around and do the same thing, when it comes to the origin of life on this planet. It happened then; it still happens now.

That's not how theoretical physicists describe the origins of the universe. 

"The picture Jim Hartle and I developed, of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe, would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water."

"The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes, but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, with grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/03/16_hawking_text.shtml

The spontaneous quantum creation of the universe is not the spontaneous generation to which you refer.

[tonymctones]

That's not how theoretical physicists describe the origins of the universe. 

"The picture Jim Hartle and I developed, of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe, would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water."

"The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes, but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, with grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/03/16_hawking_text.shtml

The spontaneous quantum creation of the universe is not the spontaneous generation to which you refer.

Im not sure exactly where you were going with this decker although that article was interesting it doesnt address the question of Life, on the theorizes on the issue of the origin of the universe.

[tonymctones]

As I’ve said previously and contrary to Deicide's claim, the idea that “evolution doesn’t deal with origin” is (or, at least, was) a falsehood. Origin was addressed, when the theory of evolution was first formulated. But, the tenet behind it (spontaneous generation) was shown to be, at the very least faulty. Yet, many evolutionists (whether they admit it or not) still hold to SG as having occurred. Otherwise, they are left with the one option that don’t float their boat:


The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.

But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” - J. W. N. Sullivan. The Limitations of Science
 
How ironic is it that some atheists, who get on Christians fore believing in things "without scientific evidence", turn right around and do the same thing, when it comes to the origin of life on this planet. It happened then; it still happens now.

MC while I can see your point I think that decides point is that evolution is not dependent on the origin of life, no matter how life came to be evolution still exists.

[Decker]

Im not sure exactly where you were going with this decker although that article was interesting it doesnt address the question of Life, on the theorizes on the issue of the origin of the universe.

I chose the beginning of the beginning where time and the laws of physics come into existence.

Science tries to explain things in a manner consistent with materialism.  To import a supernatural god as the cause is just the 'god of gaps' making the rounds.  It goes like this:  we don't know the origins of life, then god must have done it.

Which god would that be?

The only honest answer to the question of what brought life about on our planet is, "I don't know."  Now science, in time, may be able to develop a rational explanation of that mystery.  Religion is not so predisposed.

[tonymctones]

I chose the beginning of the beginning where time and the laws of physics come into existence.

Science tries to explain things in a manner consistent with materialism.  To import a supernatural god as the cause is just the 'god of gaps' making the rounds.  It goes like this:  we don't know the origins of life, then god must have done it.

Which god would that be?

The only honest answer to the question of what brought life about on our planet is, "I don't know."  Now science, in time, may be able to develop a rational explanation of that mystery.  Religion is not so predisposed.

LOL well I dont think anybody here is trying to make the claim that b/c we dont know why or how it happened it must be b/c God did it. i think he is pointing out the fact that nobody knows how life created which does mean that religion is a possiblity does it not? why do ppl start threads and pointless never ending arguements over God not existing? Religion is not necissarily full of uncompremising, ignorant ppl as you may seem to think. Religion will in all reality probably never be proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt as new info will just be worked into the belief system.