Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Yup, curious to hear about these as well.
Please share.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution is illogical and non sense
- Thread starter ttechsan
- Start date
Please share.
Blastcat
Active Member
Something I learned as a cultish Christian, doubt is a million times stronger than faith. If you believe God to heal you, then maybe, just maybe in a million years you can get it. But just doubt for a single microsecond that there's a possibility that God won't heal you. You're d**m right he won't. A mustard seed of faith might be able to move a mountain, but a quark of doubt will create a universe.
Is this healing or non healing from God something that can be falsified?.. because.. seems to me. either way.. hard to tell if God healed, or if it was JUST medicine.. I'm an atheist and SOMETIMES when I'm sick.. I just get better.. no praying.. no anything at all whatsoever but TIME. Or.. maybe just maybe GOD is playing a trick on me and healing me.. AND not telling me.
AND when I don't get better by .. waiting.. I can go to the doctor. Now, USUALLY, that works. SO far it has. I expect , that one day.. it wont work. And then I will die. And hey.. People who believe also die.
I don't see much difference, I sure don't see any GOD doing any HEALING.. It really doesn't seem to matter if someone is a believer or not when it comes to being sick.
And we know that prayer doesn't work. So....
Firstly that is not how evolution is generally taught. Secondly, Atheists would be a relatively small subset of the group "people who believe in evolution", there would be a big subset who are also christians, another big subset who are buddhists and so on. THere are probably more christian people who accept evolution than there are atheists.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
You can see that Christianity presently sharply declines in the usa. That is because of evolution theory. These christians accepting evolution lose the direct reference to the decisions by which the universe comes to be. They will not be Christians for very long without this relationship. What I see of Christians accepting evolution is all not good. It does not have a clear spirit, it is problematical, subjugated.
It seems to be essential to simply accept as fact that freedom is real and relevant. To deny it then your faith is only ever going to be weak intellectualism, and have no strong emotional basis.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Evidence, please.
Then please explain to me why so many scientists who work in evolution theory are still practising Christians (as well as theists of various other religions).
Wrong on all counts. Evolution is merely a fact of how the world functions. There are no religious, spiritual or moral implications beyond understanding and accepting the notion that life shares common ancestry.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I believe that evolution happens (that life forms adapt, etc.,) -but that it is one aspect of the overall creation. I believe all life shares a common source, but not that all life necessarily shares common ancestry.
Even without considering a designer or God, not all life on earth came from the same exact puddle of primordial soup, for example -or from one single simple life form -and life on other planets would not necessarily be of the same ancestry.
The source of life in a physical sense are the natural elements and forces which lend themselves the the production of life. I believe they can be arranged by a lengthy process such as evolution -or more quickly -even instantaneously given a "blueprint" and a capable interface.
Just as we make preparations to restore life on earth in case of disaster, so could God use previous life forms he caused to evolve as a basis for renewing the earth after it became waste and ruin -as described in Genesis.
God is not simply credited with creating life, but all things -the heavens, the worlds -which means that he designed the elements from which physical life was produced -with the initial intent of producing physical life.
So... Whether by evolution without direct action being necessary or immediate arrangement/instantaneous creation, the same elements would have to come together in the same configuration. Such a God would certainly be capable of both.
We do not know whether God has caused life to evolve on countless planets by the nature of the Big Bang -which would mean it would not need constant attention -and also had direct influence on man in preparation for making the universe subject to man -eventually made immortal under God and Christ -as described in scripture.
When the children of God become immortal and have forever to create throughout the universe, perhaps we will find physical life on many planets -or, perhaps we may be the ones to cause life on many planets.
We cannot say whether God caused the "Big Bang" to inevitably produce life forms by bringing the various elements together in the necessary way automatically -perhaps on many worlds -or whether it was necessary that he arrange things after the universe was initiated -but it is also possible that he did both.
Evolutionary theory has led to some losing their belief in God or their religion, but that is a tragic mistake. That has more to do with their limited understanding than anything actually in scripture which they might believe has been disproved.
The scripture is truth -but that is not to say we immediately understand what we read -that it says what we think it does, etc...
It... Does.... Not... Say.... The.... Earth.... Is.... Only..... 6,000..... Years.... Old!
Let.... That.... Go!
......And we certainly could not possibly learn what an eternal God has been up to for billions and billions of years, ad infinitum, from a few pages which were not even focused on that subject.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.
That's all we get!
The rest happened some time afterward -and is not a description of the initial creation the earth - it describes what God did AFTER it had become formless and void by some unspecified event or chain of events.
It got wrecked some time after its initial completion. It's initial completion is described in Job -which indicates such a wonderful state as to cause the angels to shout for joy.
Even the lights dividing the day and night/times and seasons describe relative motion rather than necessarily describing their initial creation (even the initial "let their be light" does not necessarily describe the sun). Maybe the moon was constantly blocking the sun before that -we can't possibly know from a few words.
Anyway - my point is that looking at the evidence available need not cause one to stop believing in God.
To conclude that the available evidence somehow disproves God or indicates that a designer was not necessary is not logical -and would be premature, to say the least, if God did not exist.
However, available evidence can disprove and has disproved specific ideas about God and his possible activities -and can disprove a "God" of a specific description.
Any believer should realize that they don't know much at all about God -they haven't even had the time to get to know him or his ways in any detail -and that anything which can be learned can only serve to help one know him better.
They should also realize that ther initial ideas about what they read in scripture can be wrong. That does not mean scripture is wrong.
1 Corinthians 2:
9 But as it is written:
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
Even without considering a designer or God, not all life on earth came from the same exact puddle of primordial soup, for example -or from one single simple life form -and life on other planets would not necessarily be of the same ancestry.
The source of life in a physical sense are the natural elements and forces which lend themselves the the production of life. I believe they can be arranged by a lengthy process such as evolution -or more quickly -even instantaneously given a "blueprint" and a capable interface.
Just as we make preparations to restore life on earth in case of disaster, so could God use previous life forms he caused to evolve as a basis for renewing the earth after it became waste and ruin -as described in Genesis.
God is not simply credited with creating life, but all things -the heavens, the worlds -which means that he designed the elements from which physical life was produced -with the initial intent of producing physical life.
So... Whether by evolution without direct action being necessary or immediate arrangement/instantaneous creation, the same elements would have to come together in the same configuration. Such a God would certainly be capable of both.
We do not know whether God has caused life to evolve on countless planets by the nature of the Big Bang -which would mean it would not need constant attention -and also had direct influence on man in preparation for making the universe subject to man -eventually made immortal under God and Christ -as described in scripture.
When the children of God become immortal and have forever to create throughout the universe, perhaps we will find physical life on many planets -or, perhaps we may be the ones to cause life on many planets.
We cannot say whether God caused the "Big Bang" to inevitably produce life forms by bringing the various elements together in the necessary way automatically -perhaps on many worlds -or whether it was necessary that he arrange things after the universe was initiated -but it is also possible that he did both.
Evolutionary theory has led to some losing their belief in God or their religion, but that is a tragic mistake. That has more to do with their limited understanding than anything actually in scripture which they might believe has been disproved.
The scripture is truth -but that is not to say we immediately understand what we read -that it says what we think it does, etc...
It... Does.... Not... Say.... The.... Earth.... Is.... Only..... 6,000..... Years.... Old!
Let.... That.... Go!
......And we certainly could not possibly learn what an eternal God has been up to for billions and billions of years, ad infinitum, from a few pages which were not even focused on that subject.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.
That's all we get!
The rest happened some time afterward -and is not a description of the initial creation the earth - it describes what God did AFTER it had become formless and void by some unspecified event or chain of events.
It got wrecked some time after its initial completion. It's initial completion is described in Job -which indicates such a wonderful state as to cause the angels to shout for joy.
Even the lights dividing the day and night/times and seasons describe relative motion rather than necessarily describing their initial creation (even the initial "let their be light" does not necessarily describe the sun). Maybe the moon was constantly blocking the sun before that -we can't possibly know from a few words.
Anyway - my point is that looking at the evidence available need not cause one to stop believing in God.
To conclude that the available evidence somehow disproves God or indicates that a designer was not necessary is not logical -and would be premature, to say the least, if God did not exist.
However, available evidence can disprove and has disproved specific ideas about God and his possible activities -and can disprove a "God" of a specific description.
Any believer should realize that they don't know much at all about God -they haven't even had the time to get to know him or his ways in any detail -and that anything which can be learned can only serve to help one know him better.
They should also realize that ther initial ideas about what they read in scripture can be wrong. That does not mean scripture is wrong.
1 Corinthians 2:
9 But as it is written:
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
Blastcat
Active Member
Evidence, please.
Why should we consider a designer god if we have no evidence for one? And again, why do you reject evolution?
- Credited, perhaps. But is there any evidence for this god, for this creation?
You say you can't learn what this god does... billions of years ago, or presumably, at any time at all. So, why pretend that you do know the god created the heavens and Earth, as it says in the book?
To an outsider of your faith, this quote looks like words. But where is the evidence that any of this is true? I don't see any at all.
- Please demonstrate the soundness of the logic using evidence.
- I would like to know what a believer can say he or she knows about this god.. I think it even says in your book that you can't know the mind of god. In my case, I came to the realization that all I knew about God was what it said in a book.. and what the preachers told me how to interpret the words. Words, and interpretation of words is the only evidence I ever got, and still get.
That's not enough for me. I wonder why it is for anyone else?
- That's true. The book might be true. But that has to be demonstrated with some evidence. If what the book says is unfalsifiable, then we can't really know if it's false or true.
So, why pretend that it is true?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
In my introductory anthropology course, I quickly learned that I had to deal with this because so many of my students came in with that belief that the two were incompatible.
That we can sit here in the 21st century and have repeated long-running debates on evolution versus creationism is an intriguing obscenity.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
The evidence of not all sharing the SAME "ancestry" is that we can not all (all earthly life forms) be traced to ONE single individual ancestor from an evolutionary point of view.
There was not one single "original life form 1" from which all directly descended.
Even if all earthly life came from one single puddle of primordial soup, that puddle could have produced many similar whatevers -not just one.
That was just a technical point. All earthly life is based on previous life forms, but that is not necessarily shared ancestry -it is shared origin.
It all originated from an arrangement of the elements. The elements were created by the big bang, yada yada, and traveled to become arranged as life forms.
I was pointing out that life can come from "natural" things because the nature of the elements lend themselves to life.
My point was that God would not have designed physical life from elements which happened to exist, he would have designed the elements in preparation for physical life (etc.).
From there, I was trying to illustrate that a "believer" should not reject "evolution" itself based on anything in scripture -and especially not based on what they believe scripture says which might not be the case.
It's a bit like you (no offense intended) reading what I wrote and thinking I was denying evolution -when I was doing exactly the opposite.
I was saying that I don't know whether or not God has caused many things to evolve on many worlds or not -whether it would have required that he arranged things after the big bang, or whether he might have set it in motion by the big bang, etc.... whether he set evolution in motion then made little tweaks along the way...
because I'm a newb.
You can consider what you like. Not everyone has all available evidence, and not all evidence can be shared at will.
I do not reject evolution. I just know that we don't have all of the evidence yet.
Believing that God created Adam directly 6,000 years ago (the first "man" by biblical definition) actually has nothing to do with whether or not things evolve.
I DO know that both evolution and design exist -and essentially believe them to be inseparable.
I don't believe everything the religious conclude -and I don't believe everything scientists conclude.
Some believe that evolution designed designers without realizing it did.
I don't believe that is the whole story -or necessarily a completely accurate part of the whole story.
There is evolution -and there is design -and I am interested in what role each played at what point.
Many scientists consider many possibilities for which there is no direct evidence. Then, when it comes to considering a designer in regard to evolution, it's like they are afraid of committing blasphemy.
Designers exist. It's ok to consider them. You don't have to accept anything without proof, but you should not be afraid to consider things which are possible -and sometimes it leads to great advancements even if you don't prove the original thing.
If you only consider available evidence, you are absolutely, 100 percent, guaranteed to MISS SOMETHING -to NOT get the BIG PICTURE (ok -usually
in microcosm -but absolutely overall -because collecting all of the evidence will take a very long time).Imagine, for example, that an alien scientist landed on earth, mixed up a puddle of primordial soup -then left.
It "could" have happened naturally -but it didn't (in this scenario). Should we consider such possibilities? We have no evidence -but what sort of evidence could there possibly be?
A muddy stick?
Doesn't make much difference, either -unless a bunch of alien scientists show up later. Maybe a few people were visited by them over the years -but the others just scoffed!
Until the invasion -then..... evidence abounds!!!!
So -what if it is all false? It could still lead to us to stir up pools of primordial soup on other planets.
There is plenty of evidence for God/creation, but the sort which would convince most is at the discretion of God. It will be made available to all eventually. Feel free to disagree.
I did not say I can't learn what God does. I essentially said that newbs could not possibly account for all of his time. Sometimes God shows people what he does.
I know God exists. I can't make you know God exists.
I will do my best to demonstrate the soundness of the logic (that available evidence does not disprove God or indicate that a designer was not necessary) using evidence in future posts.
You seem more sincere than many, so I don't mind.
Right now I will say that the POINT at which design might have been necessary for the emergence of life on earth may not have been AFTER the big bang.
I say that because I see the big bang as something similar to a seed which became what it would -produced what it would -by its nature -so what it would produce could have been in that nature already -by design -and that nature could have included every last turn of events which led to the emergence of life.
That is why I brought up God being credited with creating ALL things.
If you are interested in God -have any sort of sincere curiosity -think that he might possibly exist -ask him to make you understand the truth.
He had written that if you draw near to him, he will draw near to you. That has to do with communication, but also attitude, so I would advise doing so respectfully.
If you are not interested, why waste your time with the issue?
(According to scripture) God is not desperately trying to get people to believe in him. Showing up would fast-track that.
Besides, it didn't make much of a difference to those with direct evidence. They still didn't get the big picture.
He is far more concerned that we believe the truth.
That includes his existence, authority, etc., but he would rather see one do what is obviously right in his absence than know he exists/is in authority and do wrong.
You can't be where you aren't until you are -you can't believe what you don't until you do.
You might get lost -and you might believe the wrong thing.
Just be a good person. Keep going.
Last edited:
Blastcat
Active Member
It cannot be traced because the nature of the INDIVIDUAL as you say would NOT LEAVE ANY TRACE. So, your demand is ridiculous.
Also, evolution isn't about ONE individual.. it's about species.. groups.. You know that, right?
And you know this.. because.....how...?
- Yes, it COULD have done.. but you don't know this.. do you?.. If you do.. please demonstrate your evidence for it.
Again, you indulge in the imaginary...And again, evolution is about how species change over time. What you insist on discussing is actually not the theory of evolution, but how LIFE begins.. and nobody claims to know that.. There are hypotheses, based on induction, but that's it. We don't HAVE a time machine. We don't have and YOU don't have.
What do you mean.. designed.. do you mean created?.. So what did he create the "elements" with.. nothing or something?
Because earlier, you stated categorically that NOTHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING... so.. God created out of SOMETHING?
well.. what is it?... which one.. nothing or something? I can't guess.. you would have to tell me what you think.
Oh good.. Happy to hear it. Nobody does claim to know everything, BTW. Nobody in their right minds, anyway.
When you say you KNOW something, I would ask for evidence. We have verifiable evidence for evolution. We know it's true.
However, what is your evidence for "design" in nature?... Or more to the point.. a "designer"?
Because, as a human, I can easily say that a rock is "designed" to be thrown.. but that is not quite accurate. A stick isn't made to hit people with. Please explain what you mean by design in nature. You ARE talking about design in nature, right? Not some design by HUMANS.. right? We all know about how WATCHES are designed.. But please, demonstrate how you KNOW that design in nature exists.
I'd be very interested.
You have a weird idea of how the scientific method actually works. What you are describing is confirmation bias and some weird global conspiracy of silence.
Both are completely antithetical to the scientific method.
Nobody in his right mind would ever pretend to have ALL KNOWLEDGE. Science doesn't depend on absolute knowledge.
No, sorry. We agree that evolution is science. Your design assertion isn't justified scientifically. Now, with your design inference, you've entered in a religious position that isn't scientific at all. Some people pretend that ID is science.. but this claim doesn't pass the rigorous examination of the actual, real scientific community. ID has simply been rejected as a religiously motivated pseudo-science.
So, you can believe in "design" if you like, but when you say that it's true or scientific, you are simply wrong.
If you only consider available evidence, you are absolutely, 100 percent, guaranteed to MISS SOMETHING -to NOT get the BIG PICTURE (ok -usually
- Sorry, we CAN only consider available evidence.. we can't be expected to consider.. made up stories.. surely. And we DO not want to fall for the argument from ignorance. Just because we might not know SOMETHING does not prove SOMETHING ELSE.
Just because we don't know INFINITE data points doesn't mean we know NOTHING.. or have no limited knowledge. We DO KNOW SOME THINGS. Let's not deny what we DO know in favor of what MIGHT BE POSSIBLE.....
Anything is possible.
No, we really shouldn't consider all possibilities. That would be a huge waste of time. IF there is some EVIDENCE for aliens or whatever. ok then.. NOW we should consider the possibility. EVERYTHING IS AT LEAST POSSIBLE.
We don't have time to ponder all possibilities that MAY exist. We should focus our limited attention and resources on what we truly CAN know. Anything else is mere speculation, fiction, fantasy, and entertainment. But it's not science.
If you have evidence, you have evidence. If you don't you don't.
If it's bad evidence, I will reject it, as would most reputable scientists. The reason I don't believe in all of your so called "plenty of evidence" is that it's simply NOT CONVINCING evidence.
So, it all boils down to GOD choosing who is worthy or not to get this special divine revelation. This has NOTHING to do with science, does it? So, why pretend to talk about science as if your belief had anything to do with it?
And to me, true knowledge can be demonstrated to others. Something that is false or non existent cannot be demonstrated.
So, your claim to knowledge is NOTED.. but not at all demonstrated to be TRUE.
For all I know, you believe in something false. I won't go there with you.
- I admit to the possibility of your god .. and Santa, and Vishnu and Allah.. and pan-dimensional aliens.. all possibilities.. none of which I subscribe to at the moment.
I do not "ask" merely possible entities anything. Should I ask Santa for a new car? Why not profoundly ask VISHNU to appear to me? I'm sure that he does.. appear to many Hindus.... right?
In visions and dreams .. yes?
I just will not use a poor method to arrive at truth. Truth is too important to me. Surely, you aren't advocating that I believe just ANY claim? Why is your claim different than any other religiously motivated claim?
- It's as if you think the only possible reason to be interested in religious matters is a desire for conversion. I can assure you the topic of religion is VASTLY interesting on very many levels other than being a convert. I am interested in the logic, the philosophy, the dogma, the psychology, the sociology, the politics, the ethics and the science of religions.
It's most certainly not a waste of time for me. I am making a study of the subject.
If by "He" you mean your god.. I find that comment ironic. IF THIS GOD had as it's ultimate concern our ability to KNOW WHAT IS TRUE.. he would not "demand" that we use the worst methods imaginable to ACQUIRE the truth.
The methods you seem to espouse I should use are..
1. Confirmation bias.
2. Circular thinking
3. Bad analogy
4. Misunderstanding and misapplication of science
5. Pure subjectivism
You WILL have a very hard time convincing me to use these horrible methods to pretend to "KNOW" anything at all.. let alone your religious claims. I don't want to use bad methods.
- Again.. you seem to be unaware of irony. .. Yes, I may be mistaken, I may get lost.. but this does NOT seem to apply to yourself. Your claim to knowledge seems to be pretty FIRM.
CAN you be wrong about your beliefs? Or.. is this just ME?
IS IT POSSIBLE at all in any way that you are wrong?
Because, as you know, that's a possibility too. And you pleaded with me to accept YOUR possibility.. try it out and so forth.. doesn't work the other way? If it's a good method for ME.. why isn't it a good method for YOU ?
Try putting your HUGE bias aside for a while.. and imagine the world from an atheist point of view. You may be surprised at the results.
Well, I don't need any god belief to follow that recommendation.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
You think I am trying to say thing which I am not trying to say, do that which I am not trying to do -and to make points I am not trying to make.
What you are saying and trying to do has nothing to do with what I am saying or trying to do.
That's an almost-universal mistake people make with me -so I'll forgive you
Your last sentence is exactly my point.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
You assume far too many things about me, my position, my intent, my beliefs, etc...
I seek to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good and true.
I constantly question and re-question my beliefs -but some things are knowns, truths, absolutes and will never change no matter how much I question.
And, no.... That's not me not truly allowing those things to be questioned by myself.
I do try to see things from the perspectives of others, but I am not going to give up what I KNOW simply because another does not know it -does not think it can be known -doesn't understand how it can be known, etc....
One person being right about something and another person being wrong about something is a real thing. It is totally possible and happens all the time.
I expressed something you might want to try if you were interested.
The only bias I have is the one you think I have in your false perception of me.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Please understand that I am simply throwing stuff out there for consideration if anyone is interested. I'm not trying to do this or that -not trying to put down anyone else's positions or beliefs -not saying these are my absolute beliefs, etc.....
I understand the possibility of some sort of common ancestry -even the possibility that all life that evolved did so from one kind of early life form -but from what I have read, it is not possible that all life forms came from one, single, solitary individual life.
(I also do not hold the view that Adam and Eve's DNA would necessarily show evidence of being unrelated to other life forms even if directly created. The vague description of creating Eve from Adam's rib suggests using material -obviously including genetic material -from one in the makeup of another. Even if God created Adam without using the actual DNA from another life form -even if he started from scratch, so to speak, the blueprint could be based on the DNA of other life forms.
If we were able to map a single life form completely -make a few tweaks to the blueprint -then crank out the results on a replicator mixed with a transporter [assuming Star Trek technology], the only difference would be any tweaks made during the process -and the directly-created life form would seem to be a relative of other life forms.
The same could be true for the forms of life created after the earth had become formless and void -which is, in itself, a vague description of some ruinous event or chain of events at some point which may not have even resulted in the complete destruction of all life on earth.
As angels are indicated to have inhabited earth before man -and the rebellion of the sinning angels was before the creation of Adam and the rest of the life forms described in Genesis, perhaps it was a situation similar to the one we now face as irresponsible stewards of the Earth)
Interesting reading.....
From.....
NOVA | How Did Life Begin?
What do you think was the first form of life?
It's pretty clear that all the organisms living today, even the simplest ones, are removed from some initial life form by four billion years or so, so one has to imagine that the first forms of life would have been much, much simpler than anything that we see around us. But they must have had that fundamental property of being able to grow and reproduce and be subject to Darwinian evolution.
So it might be that the earliest things that actually fit that definition were little strands of nucleic acids. Not DNA yet—that's a more sophisticated molecule—but something that could catalyze some chemical reactions, something that had the blueprint for its own reproduction.
Would it be something we would recognize under a microscope as living, or would it be totally different?
That's a good question. I can imagine that there was a time before there was life on Earth, and then clearly there was a time X-hundred thousand years or a million years later when there were things that we would all recognize as biological. But there's no question that we must have gone through some intermediate stage where, had you been there watching them, you might have placed your bets either way.
So I can imagine that on a primordial Earth you would have replicating molecules—not particularly lifelike in our definition, but they're really getting the machinery going. Then some of them start interacting together and pretty soon you have something a little more lifelike, and then it incorporates maybe another piece of nucleic acid from somewhere else, and by the accumulation of these disparate strands of information and activity, something that you and I would look at and agree "that's biological" would have emerged.
In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form?
The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance. That said, I think what we're looking for is some kind of molecule that is simple enough that it can be made by physical processes on the young Earth, yet complicated enough that it can take charge of making more of itself. That, I think, is the moment when we cross that great divide and start moving toward something that most people would recognize as living.
I understand the possibility of some sort of common ancestry -even the possibility that all life that evolved did so from one kind of early life form -but from what I have read, it is not possible that all life forms came from one, single, solitary individual life.
(I also do not hold the view that Adam and Eve's DNA would necessarily show evidence of being unrelated to other life forms even if directly created. The vague description of creating Eve from Adam's rib suggests using material -obviously including genetic material -from one in the makeup of another. Even if God created Adam without using the actual DNA from another life form -even if he started from scratch, so to speak, the blueprint could be based on the DNA of other life forms.
If we were able to map a single life form completely -make a few tweaks to the blueprint -then crank out the results on a replicator mixed with a transporter [assuming Star Trek technology], the only difference would be any tweaks made during the process -and the directly-created life form would seem to be a relative of other life forms.
The same could be true for the forms of life created after the earth had become formless and void -which is, in itself, a vague description of some ruinous event or chain of events at some point which may not have even resulted in the complete destruction of all life on earth.
As angels are indicated to have inhabited earth before man -and the rebellion of the sinning angels was before the creation of Adam and the rest of the life forms described in Genesis, perhaps it was a situation similar to the one we now face as irresponsible stewards of the Earth)
Interesting reading.....
From.....
NOVA | How Did Life Begin?
What do you think was the first form of life?
It's pretty clear that all the organisms living today, even the simplest ones, are removed from some initial life form by four billion years or so, so one has to imagine that the first forms of life would have been much, much simpler than anything that we see around us. But they must have had that fundamental property of being able to grow and reproduce and be subject to Darwinian evolution.
So it might be that the earliest things that actually fit that definition were little strands of nucleic acids. Not DNA yet—that's a more sophisticated molecule—but something that could catalyze some chemical reactions, something that had the blueprint for its own reproduction.
Would it be something we would recognize under a microscope as living, or would it be totally different?
That's a good question. I can imagine that there was a time before there was life on Earth, and then clearly there was a time X-hundred thousand years or a million years later when there were things that we would all recognize as biological. But there's no question that we must have gone through some intermediate stage where, had you been there watching them, you might have placed your bets either way.
So I can imagine that on a primordial Earth you would have replicating molecules—not particularly lifelike in our definition, but they're really getting the machinery going. Then some of them start interacting together and pretty soon you have something a little more lifelike, and then it incorporates maybe another piece of nucleic acid from somewhere else, and by the accumulation of these disparate strands of information and activity, something that you and I would look at and agree "that's biological" would have emerged.
In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form?
The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance. That said, I think what we're looking for is some kind of molecule that is simple enough that it can be made by physical processes on the young Earth, yet complicated enough that it can take charge of making more of itself. That, I think, is the moment when we cross that great divide and start moving toward something that most people would recognize as living.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Speak for yourself
Abiogenesis is a process in chemistry and its not al that difficult with the 400,000 year period it had to take place when water formed after the earth cooled.
We are not blind here because you may be.