Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

[metis]

We should strive to examine all pertinent evidence, and then make a decision; however, much evidence has been slanted by so-called experts, who usually have their own agenda.

I very thoroughly checked over the evidence over many years, made the necessary changes in my life that I have already described, and taught anthropology, including human evolution, for roughly 30 years.

Any scientist operating on an "agenda" will be countered by many other scientists pointing out where (s)he's wrong and providing evidence to show why (s)he's wrong. If anything, religious dogma is far more "slanted" that science is because it is far more subjective versus being objective, and yet you believe far more in your religion than in science as your post above clearly indicates.

 

[leibowde84]

Webster's

Websters?

 

[First Baseman]

Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

NO.

 

[McBell]

Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

NO.

So how did god spring forth all the life in the beginning?

 

[First Baseman]

So how did god spring forth all the life in the beginning?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.

I would recommend reading both Genesis 1 & 2.

 

[viole]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.

I would recommend reading both Genesis 1 & 2.

You mean that book that says stars came after earth?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

You mean that book that says stars came after earth?

Ciao

- viole

the same one that might a person to stop and think........
which came first ?......Spirit?......or substance?

what follows your choice should be obvious

 

[viole]

the same one that might a person to stop and think........
which came first ?......Spirit?......or substance?

what follows your choice should be obvious

There is not such a thing as spirit or spirits, Thief.

I would start getting used to the idea.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

There is not such a thing as spirit or spirits, Thief.

I would start getting used to the idea.

Ciao

- viole

then you.....are not in that body.

I don't think 'you' can really get used to the idea

 

[First Baseman]

You mean that book that says stars came after earth?

Ciao

- viole

That is what I said.

 

[viole]

That is what I said.

And why should we take seriously any explanation contained in it, when it says something so obviously wrong at page 1?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

And why should we take seriously any explanation contained in it, when it says something so obviously wrong at page 1?

Ciao

- viole

picture dialog between God and Moses.
and God is trying to set some kind of cognition about an event of enormous generation......'bang'....

I doubt that Moses understood what was said to him
the science needed for the 'better picture' is much closer to you....than Moses

Moses could plead ignorance

how about you?

 

[metis]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.

I would recommend reading both Genesis 1 & 2.

Try allegory as another and far more plausible interpretation.

 

[First Baseman]

And why should we take seriously any explanation contained in it, when it says something so obviously wrong at page 1?

Ciao

- viole

Oh? You can prove it is wrong? So when are you going to get your Nobel Prize?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Science does not "prove" things, it deals in likelihood only. Have I seen enough to understand what is most likely? Absolutely.

Hockeycowboy puts the cart before the horse. For each every scientist (like myself) there was a personal journey to develop a skeptic's synthesis of the evidence, and in almost each and every case the conclusion reached supports Evolution through Natural Selection. I was not force-fed one "popular" view, bur rather started at the beginning with Aristotle's Inquiries on Animals (Τῶν περὶ τὰ ζῷα ἱστοριῶν) and worked my way up through the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis. The popularity of that synthesis stems not from its popularity (such a tautology is idiotic) but rather from the verdict of just about everyone who has skeptically examined the evidence and the arguments. The likeliness of the synthesis is measured by the plethora of creationist arguments from ignorance and the utter lack of verifiable evidence for creationism
In fact, if you bother to read the entire conversation, Dawkins makes his major point a line down: "But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, he couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point." This is one of the few places where the childish recursion of: "why, why, why, etc." leads to a meaningful outcome. Eventually, the penultimate creator had to have come about from abiogenic processes. The sheer power of this trivial logical construct, when allied with parsimony, knocks creationism (in all its guises) into a cocked hat.

Hello Sapiens, hope you are having a good day!

Here is something you might find intriguing:

DNA Language Discovered to Be Even More Complex

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

No wonder significant mutations affecting an organism's anatomy are harmful, and result in detrimental side effects! Thank goodness they are rare.

And we are supposed to believe that all 1.5 million species that now exist, as well as the millions of extinct species, of both flora and fauna, are progeny from a single-celled organism that began self-replicating eons ago?

And some unknown, unintelligent pressure or mechanism, or combination, started causing it to rewrite its incredibly complex genetic code, even creating more of its own genes, beneficially, to the point of diverging to the current multitude of species we have today?!

The currently understood complex nature of genetic coding simply does not lend itself to the explanation of the huge variety of life forms that presently exist, or ever existed! Millions?!!

Common descent is simply guessing, and many scientists recognize it.

Now, I do not deny evolution between species (and possibly genera), dog-breeding is evidence of that, but common descent requiring mutational changes, resulting in the formation of higher taxonomic categories? There is no evidence!

And, Liebowde84 was responding to another poster; so your quote of his post, and subsequent explanation, has no context in our discussion.

I get that the idea of a great First Cause, having always existed, is difficult to comprehend with our finite minds. Later, I'll share what has helped me to grasp it.

Take care.

 

[Sapiens]

Hello Sapiens, hope you are having a good day!

Here is something you might find intriguing:

DNA Language Discovered to Be Even More Complex

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

That paper is more than 3 years old, in genome work that is ancient ... btw: I read it back when it came out, here's the entire article: Exonic Transcription Factor Binding Directs Codon Choice and Affects Protein Evolution

No wonder significant mutations affecting an organism's anatomy are harmful, and result in detrimental side effects! Thank goodness they are rare.

Much less rare than once thought, you might consider the work that won last year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich and Aziz Sancar "for mechanistic studies of DNA repair"). Your cells "suffer" a million mutations a day, most all are repaired. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the mutations that "escape" repair are both not harmful and that this may be a critical piece in the puzzle.

And we are supposed to believe that all 1.5 million species that now exist, as well as the millions of extinct species, of both flora and fauna, are progeny from a single-celled organism that began self-replicating eons ago?

I am happy to entertain models of fusion of initially independent precursors and such, but, in essence, yes.

And some unknown, unintelligent pressure or mechanism, or combination, started causing it to rewrite its incredibly complex genetic code, even creating more of its own genes, beneficially, to the point of diverging to the current multitude of species we have today?!

No, natural selection resulted in the complex genetic code and through processes similar to polyploidy created addition genetic substrate.

The currently understood complex nature of genetic coding simply does not lend itself to the explanation of the huge variety of life forms that presently exist, or ever existed! Millions?!!

That is where you are wrong. It lends itself admirably and each advance makes common ancestry alll that more likely.

Common descent is simply guessing, and many scientists recognize it.

So you claim, without evidence or even support for your failed attempt at an argument from authority, which would require names, C.V.s, journal citations, etc.

Now, I do not deny evolution between species (and possibly genera), dog-breeding is evidence of that, but common descent requiring mutational changes, resulting in the formation of higher taxonomic categories? There is no evidence!

The evidence is all around you. What you are laking is falsification of the hypotheses and theories that rest on the evidence.

I get that the idea of a great First Cause, having always existed, is difficult to comprehend with our finite minds. Later, I'll share what has helped me to grasp it.

It is no more difficult than other cosmologies ... it just fails in the double-edged razor of recursivity and parsimony.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Fair enough, but please limit it to evidence that can be verified.

Hello Leibowde84, hope you are doing ok!

What follows is an article I also sent to Sapiens. (The comment afterward is mine.)

DNA Genetic Coding Discovered to Be Even More Complex

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

No wonder mutations affecting an organism's anatomy are harmful, resulting in detrimental side effects! Thank goodness they are rare.

And we are supposed to believe that all 1.5 million species that now exist, as well as the millions of extinct species, of both flora and fauna, are progeny from a single-celled organism that began self-replicating eons ago?

And some unknown, unintelligent pressure or mechanism, or combination, started causing this micro life to rewrite its incredibly complex genetic code, even creating more of its own codons, beneficially, to the point of diverging to the current multitude of varied life forms that exist, or ever existed? Millions, with 10,000 more species being found every year?!!

The complex nature of genetic coding simply does not lend itself to any credible explanation of this magnitude of variation among living organisms.



Common descent is not a possibility, and many scientists like Einstein, Behe, Sternberg, et.al., recognize that life with the systems and forces in place that help it flourish, can only originate from a Higher Intellect!

 

[leibowde84]

Hello Leibowde84, hope you are doing ok!

What follows is an article I also sent to Sapiens. (The comment afterward is mine.)

DNA Genetic Coding Discovered to Be Even More Complex

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

No wonder mutations affecting an organism's anatomy are harmful, resulting in detrimental side effects! Thank goodness they are rare.

And we are supposed to believe that all 1.5 million species that now exist, as well as the millions of extinct species, of both flora and fauna, are progeny from a single-celled organism that began self-replicating eons ago?

And some unknown, unintelligent pressure or mechanism, or combination, started causing this micro life to rewrite its incredibly complex genetic code, even creating more of its own codons, beneficially, to the point of diverging to the current multitude of varied life forms that exist, or ever existed? Millions, with 10,000 more species being found every year?!!

The complex nature of genetic coding simply does not lend itself to any credible explanation of this magnitude of variation among living organisms.



Common descent is not a possibility, and many scientists like Einstein, Behe, Sternberg, et.al., recognize that life with the systems and forces in place that help it flourish, can only originate from a Higher Intellect!

I disagree. I think you are forgetting how imperfect organisms truly are and that over 90% of species have gone extinct. Further, ours is one planet among trillions, and the time in question is inconcievably massive. All these factors take care of the issues you mentioned, imho.

 

[Blastcat]

Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

If you walk back the Evolutionary theories to their beginning at some point you have to deal with this question.

Do you believe in god magic? If you walk back the Bible story to the beginning, at some point you have to deal with this question.

Even if that first life in the form of bacteria came from some other planet hitched to an an asteroid or meteor you still have to get to the point of answering the question of how did that organism form.

Even if that first life came from dust and god magic you still have to get to the point of answering the question of how that organism form.

If you do believe in spontaneous life then please tell us how that happened and evidence for that theory.

IF you do believe in god magic creating life then please tell us how that happened and evidence for that theory.

If not then please tell us what other mechanism could have produced that first life or theory for how it happened.

Exactly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

[Yadoula]

Well I reckon that the mind works in reverse. All things that we know to physically exist is actually just the mind making sense of the things that have affected it. For instance... The sun would be the way that the mind makes sense of the god which created everything. This big powerful being gave life to all things we know is interpreted by our mind as this big ball of energy. Day and night would be our perspective of the god being present for half of existence, and got not being present for the other half. Then the moon would is our interpretation of god speading through to the places that were absent of him in the first place.... We could imagine all things as manifestations of the mind which would require no physical things at all. In fact, the mind could be creating the physical just so that it could make sense of all that god made??... god knows