The creator did it.

[Polymath257]

I don't know why you guys are so fixated on science, that you can't answer even the simplest of questions. I do not presuppose your views, which is why I asked for your views. I am not interested in your warp explanation of the scientific method of inquiry. I'm only interested in your view of how you think life got here. Evolved or not. Maybe you should take your own advice, and follow the OBJECTIVE, VERFIABLE, MEASURABLE, TESTABLE, and OBSEVABLE evidence, no matter where it leads. So please, present this evidence that led you to your supernatural conclusion.

And the answer is WE DO NOT KNOW how life originated. We are TRYING to figure that out. We have a fair amount of information, and the best ideas we have point to the development of an RNA world prior to the current DNA world of life. But,we are STILL WORKING ON IT.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the answer is WE DO NOT KNOW how life originated. We are TRYING to figure that out. We have a fair amount of information, and the best ideas we have point to the development of an RNA world prior to the current DNA world of life. But,we are STILL WORKING ON IT.

At best the argument about abiogenesis is an attempt at moving the goalposts. It would be similar to arguing "You do not fully understand the Big Bang, therefore Newton was wrong".

 

[ecco]

The Darwinian theory, if it worth believing, has to include an idea of the origin of species instead of running and hiding from it.
It must also be held to account for life from non life and something coming from nothing. If it is worth believing in it is worth putting to the scientific inquiry, unless it fails and falls short because it cannot answer such questions that ID can.

Once again, scientists are not running and hiding from anything. They are actively investigating the transistion from the "inanimate" to the "animate".

Some papers are listed here...

Abiogenesis Research Papers - Academia.edu

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

The realization that abiogenesis—the chemical process by which simplest life emerged from inanimate beginnings—and biological evolution may actually be one single continuous physico-chemical process with an identifiable driving force opens up new avenues towards resolution of the OOL problem​

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987117301305​

You may not have the educational background to understand what is written in these papers. Even if you did you would not believe it.

Nevertheless, these papers clearly refute the oft-cited contention that science is running away from researching abiogenesis. These papers clearly refute the oft-cited contention that science is afraid to discuss origins. Anyone making such assertions in the future is clearly doing so from a point of willful ignorance or, worse yet, dishonesty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, scientists are not running and hiding from anything. They are actively investigating the transistion from the "inanimate" to the "animate".

Some papers are listed here...

Abiogenesis Research Papers - Academia.edu

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know

The realization that abiogenesis—the chemical process by which simplest life emerged from inanimate beginnings—and biological evolution may actually be one single continuous physico-chemical process with an identifiable driving force opens up new avenues towards resolution of the OOL problem​

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987117301305​

You may not have the educational background to understand what is written in these papers. Even if you did you would not believe it.

Nevertheless, these papers clearly refute the oft-cited contention that science is running away from researching abiogenesis. These papers clearly refute the oft-cited contention that science is afraid to discuss origins. Anyone making such assertions in the future is clearly doing so from a point of willful ignorance or, worse yet, dishonesty.

I like the NCBI article. It supports a claim that I have made. Since it appears there are many possible chemical pathways to life we will never know the exact path that took us from nonlife to life. None of those pathways seem to need an Intelligence at all.

 

[viole]

Ummm, genetic information is not a metaphor, its a fact. The question is, where did it come from to produce the vast array of numerous life forms? It seems that an intelligence was involved to bring about this incredible and undisputed information. We can clone a sheep. But if you put a sheep in a pen and tell it to clone itself, I'm sure your demand will not be met, ever! It takes a human mind of great intelligence outside of that life form to do such a thing. This thread is entitled "God did it." If the biblical God is outside of our time and space, how would we ever come to know him? Unless, he chose to tell us. If he didn't choose to tell us, we would be left to try and figure it out on our own. Following ever wind of doctrine not knowing irrefutably what the truth is concerning our origins, our purpose or our destiny. Not only did he choose to tell us these things, he said that we can know of his power and creative attributes by the things that are made. Besides the Genesis account (which is how he chose to tell us) He also tells us that "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." So, it's not so hard to consider that an all powerful and immeasurably intelligent being was able to create all life on this planet and place it in a perfect position in our solar system to be able to sustain life as we know it. Is this reasonable?

Is that a joke? We live in a planet with the perfect conditions for life, because of a creator? You are an atheist trying to make a parody of Christians, right? I am not sure it is funny

If not, why did God create the other 100,000,000,000,000,000, and change, planets?

Ciao

- viole

 

[tas8831]

It appears that Jesus himself believed the bible.

Interesting. What is the bible? I think you maybe are referring to the Pentateuch?

 

[Rapture Era]

First, 'evolution' means how species change over geological time. That is different than abiogenesis, the development of the first life. The 'molecules to man' idea is a combination of the two.

I understand this view, my question is, if you are so positive that molecules to man started as this combination, what is you best scientific explanation of HOW it started?

 

[Rapture Era]

​

Yes, generally speaking, it is correct. However, you have completely slipped away from your original contention:

My response was:
​

So, again...
Are you unaware that there are many scientists, theists and atheists, who are working to understand how abiogenesis works?
-or-
...is it that you are aware and just intentionally misstate the truth to further your agenda?

​

I am fully aware! My question is and has always been, what have they discovered? Answer, NOTHING, why? Because abiogenesis is impossible! You can study this issue till the cows come home and the result will always bee the same answer, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE! Now, if you have some new information that would enlighten any scientist in the world about theist or not, I'm sure they would jump all over you to get it! So, do you have some new revelation?​

 

[SkepticThinker]

What was the title of Darwins book..."On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Um yeah. Notice how it's not called, "On the Origin of Life?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

The problem is Rapture Era seems to understands evolution all too well, but you do not seem to understand the basic problems with it or at least do not admit to the problems, if you did why don't you tell us some of the difficulties evolution has as a theory and what we know by observation.

No, Rapture Era has nothing but creationist canards that have been debunked for like 50 years.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just reply to the argument without the ad hominem.

Statement of Faith

Foundational Principles

Those organizations don't practice science. They practice and push religion. That's not how science is done.

 

[ecco]

I am fully aware! My question is and has always been, what have they discovered? Answer, NOTHING,...​

​

One again you are completely wrong. The following is excerpted from my post #468.

Some papers are listed here...
Abiogenesis Research Papers - Academia.edu

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know
The realization that abiogenesis—the chemical process by which simplest life emerged from inanimate beginnings—and biological evolution may actually be one single continuous physico-chemical process with an identifiable driving force opens up new avenues towards resolution of the OOL problem
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987117301305
You may not have the educational background to understand what is written in these papers. Even if you did you would not believe it.

why? Because abiogenesis is impossible! ...IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!

Well, that's the reason for all of GodDidIt: It's impossible; It's just too complex; Science can't explain; ad nauseam.

Well, science has and does explain. It is not gods living in the center of the earth spewing hot lava out of the tops of some mountains. It is not gods living in the clouds throwing lightning spears. If you want to believe these things, that's your prerogative.

I also understand that people believe science only up to the point that it conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs. After that, they must deny, deny, deny.

​

Now, if you have some new information that would enlighten any scientist in the world about theist or not, I'm sure they would jump all over you to get it! So, do you have some new revelation?

I don't. I don't claim to be a scientist working on abiogenesis. However, there are many. I have listed the published papers some of them have written. But I know it makes no difference to people like you. You haven't even accepted ToE yet. If you really want to go by some stories from 5000 years ago, it's surprising you believe the earth is a spheroid (you do believe the earth is a spheroid, don't you?)

 

[He has Risen!]

Does anyone here object to the notion that a person (me) can believe in a God who has created all things and in science that explains how things are designed and function?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't object to the notion that someone could believe in god(s) that designed evolution. Most of my Christian friends and family fall into that camp (except for one uncle who is a young earth creationist).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand this view, my question is, if you are so positive that molecules to man started as this combination, what is you best scientific explanation of HOW it started?

Do you understand what is meant when it is said that a concept is still in the hypothetical stage? It means that there are significant questions that have not been answered yet. It does not mean that those questions cannot be answered. And why ask this question to a lay person? If you read some of the sources provided you will see that there appear to be multiple pathways to life so it will be all but impossible to say "this is how life was formed". What we do have is evidence for abiogenesis and no evidence for an intelligence being involved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does anyone here object to the notion that a person (me) can believe in a God who has created all things and in science that explains how things are designed and function?

You need to be a bit more specific. Are you denying evolution? Then you will find quite a few Christians that object to that belief.

 

[Rapture Era]

​

One again you are completely wrong. The following is excerpted from my post #468.

Well, that's the reason for all of GodDidIt: It's impossible; It's just too complex; Science can't explain; ad nauseam.​

Well, science has and does explain. It is not gods living in the center of the earth spewing hot lava out of the tops of some mountains. It is not gods living in the clouds throwing lightning spears. If you want to believe these things, that's your prerogative.

I also understand that people believe science only up to the point that it conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs. After that, they must deny, deny, deny.

​

I don't. I don't claim to be a scientist working on abiogenesis. However, there are many. I have listed the published papers some of them have written. But I know it makes no difference to people like you. You haven't even accepted ToE yet. If you really want to go by some stories from 5000 years ago, it's surprising you believe the earth is a spheroid (you do believe the earth is a spheroid, don't you?)

For the sake of room, This was from one of the websites you supplied:

3. Is the origin of life problem soluble in principle?

In addressing the OOL question, it first needs to be emphasized that the question has two distinct facets—historic and ahistoric, and the ability to uncover each of these two facets is quite different. Uncovering the historic facet is the more problematic one. Uncovering that facet would require specifying the original chemical system from which the process of abiogenesis began, together with the chemical pathway from that initiating system right through the extensive array of intermediate structures leading to simplest life. Regretfully, however, much of that historic information will probably never be known. Evolutionary processes are contingent, suggesting that any number of feasible pathways could have led from inanimate matter to earliest life, provided, of course, that those pathways were consistent with the underlying laws of physics and chemistry. The difficulty arises because historic events, once they have taken place, can only be revealed if their occurrence was recorded in some manner. Indeed, it is this historic facet of abiogenesis that makes the OOL problem so much more intractable than the parallel question of biological evolution. Biological evolution also has its historic and ahistoric facets. But whereas for biological evolution the historic record is to a degree accessible through palaeobiologic and phylogenetic studies, for the process of abiogenesis those methodologies have proved uninformative; there is no known geological record pertaining to prebiotic systems, and phylogenetic studies become less informative the further back one goes in attempting to trace out ancestral lineages. Phylogenetic studies presume the existence of organismal individuality and the genealogical (vertical) transfer of genetic information. However, the possibility that earliest life may have been communal [14] and dominated by horizontal gene transfer [15–17] suggests that information regarding the evolutionary stages that preceded the last universal common ancestor [18] would have to be considered highly speculative. Accordingly, the significance of such studies to the characterization of early life, let alone prebiotic systems, becomes highly uncertain.


The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.
What, if anything here leads you to believe that abiogenesis is not impossible? Your own source!

 

[Rapture Era]

Do you understand what is meant when it is said that a concept is still in the hypothetical stage? It means that there are significant questions that have not been answered yet. It does not mean that those questions cannot be answered. And why ask this question to a lay person? If you read some of the sources provided you will see that there appear to be multiple pathways to life so it will be all but impossible to say "this is how life was formed". What we do have is evidence for abiogenesis and no evidence for an intelligence being involved.

Oh brother! Tell you what, read the above post! Everything you just said here is my exact point in that, if something fails the scientific method, it should be abandoned. After over 150 years and all of the science and technology guess what? Abiogenesis leading to macro evolution is IMPOSSILE! It's not just me saying it, it's honest scientists saying it! Read above!

 

[He has Risen!]

You need to be a bit more specific. Are you denying evolution? Then you will find quite a few Christians that object to that belief.

Are you a Christian?

 

[He has Risen!]

For the sake of room, This was from one of the websites you supplied:

3. Is the origin of life problem soluble in principle?

In addressing the OOL question, it first needs to be emphasized that the question has two distinct facets—historic and ahistoric, and the ability to uncover each of these two facets is quite different. Uncovering the historic facet is the more problematic one. Uncovering that facet would require specifying the original chemical system from which the process of abiogenesis began, together with the chemical pathway from that initiating system right through the extensive array of intermediate structures leading to simplest life. Regretfully, however, much of that historic information will probably never be known. Evolutionary processes are contingent, suggesting that any number of feasible pathways could have led from inanimate matter to earliest life, provided, of course, that those pathways were consistent with the underlying laws of physics and chemistry. The difficulty arises because historic events, once they have taken place, can only be revealed if their occurrence was recorded in some manner. Indeed, it is this historic facet of abiogenesis that makes the OOL problem so much more intractable than the parallel question of biological evolution. Biological evolution also has its historic and ahistoric facets. But whereas for biological evolution the historic record is to a degree accessible through palaeobiologic and phylogenetic studies, for the process of abiogenesis those methodologies have proved uninformative; there is no known geological record pertaining to prebiotic systems, and phylogenetic studies become less informative the further back one goes in attempting to trace out ancestral lineages. Phylogenetic studies presume the existence of organismal individuality and the genealogical (vertical) transfer of genetic information. However, the possibility that earliest life may have been communal [14] and dominated by horizontal gene transfer [15–17] suggests that information regarding the evolutionary stages that preceded the last universal common ancestor [18] would have to be considered highly speculative. Accordingly, the significance of such studies to the characterization of early life, let alone prebiotic systems, becomes highly uncertain.


The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.
What, if anything here leads you to believe that abiogenesis is not impossible? Your own source!

Thank you Rapture man for dishing to them their own source of information...that was great. And thank you for not using their ad hominem ways of arguing, like the picture below illustrates...