[_ Old Earth _] How did life come to be?

[RND]

In most every conversation I have ever had with someone that believes in evolution (which is a form of atheism in my opinion) the position as to how life actually started is usually dismissed in some way or obfuscated outright. The 'faith' that an evolutionist has to have is that in order for something to have evolved it had to evolve from something - "A" had to exist first in order for "Ab" to have evolved from "A."

When defending evolution however the evolutionist has to deflect, discount and dismiss this very notion. If one is found to be honest enough to admit this basic premise then the origin of life itself has to be deflected, discounted and dismissed.

This is where things generally get very interesting regarding the discussion in that, when closely examined, the evolutionist believes that life "just happened." It was random happenstance. Something ("A" in this case) came from nothing. Which, when examined even closer, is not much different than the faith needed to believe that God created things. The creationist has God as creator; He made it all. In this he has faith. The evolutionist? Random happenstance.Something from nothing. In this he has faith.

So dear evolutionist please tell us how life came about? How did life begin to the point something could begin to evolve?

 

[Barbarian]

In most every conversation I have ever had with someone that believes in evolution (which is a form of atheism in my opinion)

That's your first misconception. Evolutionary theory has no implications for theism whatever. It neither supports nor denies the existance of God.

the position as to how life actually started is usually dismissed in some way or obfuscated outright.

In the same sense that chemistry dismisses the origin of atoms. In science, a theory is only concerned with the things it makes claims about. Evolution, for example, is indifferent to the way life began. It only describes how existing life changes over time.

The 'faith' that an evolutionist has to have

Science isn't about faith. It's about evidence. As a scientists why he accepts evolutionary theory. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's faith. If he starts talking about evidence, it's science. I'm guessing you already know how that would turn out. If not, go give it a try. It will be a revelation for you.

is that in order for something to have evolved it had to evolve from something - "A" had to exist first in order for "Ab" to have evolved from "A."

Darwin didn't offer a theory on where it came from, but suggested that God just created the first living things. That would be OK as far as evolutionary theory is concerned. Or it could have been some other way. Wouldn't matter, as far as the theory is concerned. It just assumes life started, without an concern for the way it did.

When defending evolution however the evolutionist has to deflect, discount and dismiss this very notion.

You have to consider what scientists do. They don't need to know where matter came from to do chemistry. They don't need to know where life came from to do biology. Theologically, God says that life was brought forth by the Earth, which would suggest abiogenesis is correct, but evolutionary theory isn't concerned with that.

If one is found to be honest enough to admit this basic premise then the origin of life itself has to be deflected, discounted and dismissed.

Personally, I think that God did it naturally, as He says in Genesis, but it wouldn't be an issue for evolution, if He had merely "poofed" organisms into being.

This is where things generally get very interesting regarding the discussion in that, when closely examined, the evolutionist believes that life "just happened."

Um, no. Never met a biologist who thought that. Sounds sort of like some uneducated creationist's imagination about science.

It was random happenstance.

The evidence indicates it wasn't random. I don't see how it could have been random, given the laws of chemistry and physics.

Something ("A" in this case) came from nothing. Which, when examined even closer, is not much different than the faith needed to believe that God created things.

Again, whatever you've been taught about it, is so far from what science actually says, as to be another thing entirely. Could I suggest that you get a good book on evolution and learn what it's actually about?

The creationist has God as creator;

In America, at least, so do the great majority of evolutionists. Gallup poll says that they are the single largest group here.

The evolutionist? Random happenstance.

Nope. You've been badly misled about that.

So dear evolutionist please tell us how life came about?

God says that the earth brought forth life. I think He's right. The evidence for abiogenesis is certainly consistent with that.

How did life begin to the point something could begin to evolve?

I trust He managed that without too much difficulty. Still an open question for science, though. Science can't say anything about God.

But scientists can. For which I am most grateful to Him.

 

[RND]

That's your first misconception. Evolutionary theory has no implications for theism whatever. It neither supports nor denies the existance of God.

I think that's why I said "in my opinion." Your opinion is different.

In the same sense that chemistry dismisses the origin of atoms. In science, a theory is only concerned with the things it makes claims about. Evolution, for example, is indifferent to the way life began. It only describes how existing life changes over time.

Doesn't change anything I stated. But that leads to another point. "Why" is indifferent to the way life began?

Science isn't about faith. It's about evidence. As a scientists why he accepts evolutionary theory. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's faith. If he starts talking about evidence, it's science. I'm guessing you already know how that would turn out. If not, go give it a try. It will be a revelation for you.

The question of this thread still stands! Whether one is a scientist or not makes little difference in one's "belief" (faith) is when and how life started.

Darwin didn't offer a theory on where it came from, but suggested that God just created the first living things. That would be OK as far as evolutionary theory is concerned. Or it could have been some other way. Wouldn't matter, as far as the theory is concerned. It just assumes life started, without an concern for the way it did.

At best then you are a deist.

You have to consider what scientists do. They don't need to know where matter came from to do chemistry.

But they have to believe in matter right? One couldn't be a chemist (or at least a very good one) if they didn't believe in matter.

They don't need to know where life came from to do biology.

Likewise a biologist has to belief in life right?

Theologically, God says that life was brought forth by the Earth, which would suggest abiogenesis is correct, but evolutionary theory isn't concerned with that.

Thgeologically it states that God made all things.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

You can deny the obvious in favor of whatever you choose to believe but at least be honest with the scriptures.

Personally, I think that God did it naturally, as He says in Genesis, but it wouldn't be an issue for evolution, if He had merely "poofed" organisms into being.

The evolutionist believes the same thing. "It just happened."

Um, no. Never met a biologist who thought that. Sounds sort of like some uneducated creationist's imagination about science.

Then please, by all means, educate this "uneducated" creationist about where life came from. You believe that God created life "naturally." OK, that's your belief, your faith. How did God do that? Did He make a fish that he designed would grow legs, walk on land only to go back in the water and grow fins again?

The evidence indicates it wasn't random. I don't see how it could have been random, given the laws of chemistry and physics.

So then you believe God made something?

Again, whatever you've been taught about it, is so far from what science actually says, as to be another thing entirely. Could I suggest that you get a good book on evolution and learn what it's actually about?

This is another predictable pattern of the evolutionist in that they have to "talk down" to others to "appear" so much more knowledgeable and refined!

Now as to your question how do you know I don't have books on evolution and have read them?

Could I suggest that instead of quibbling you answer the OP? Your lack of either being able to, or willing to anddress the OP says more about you and your argument than you know!

In America, at least, so do the great majority of evolutionists. Gallup poll says that they are the single largest group here.

Proof of the fact that many people that say they believe in God yet discount His word in no way makes the majority correct.

Nope. You've been badly misled about that.

Then do explain. You've yet an attempt at answer the OP question.

How did life come to be?

God says that the earth brought forth life. I think He's right. The evidence for abiogenesis is certainly consistent with that.

The Bible clearly says that God made all things. Do you deny this? Which Bible do you use?

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.

It is very dangerous to take one scripture and try to build a philosophy on it.

I trust He managed that without too much difficulty.

That's an extremely vague point frankly.

Still an open question for science, though. Science can't say anything about God. But scientists can. For which I am most grateful to Him.

Other than prove Him correct science has done nothing for God. !

 

[RND]

Well, it didn't take long for an evolutionist to utterly fail in their attempt to answer a fairly straight forward question:

How did life come to be?

Anyone shocked or surprised? I'm not. This is typical. Deflect, discount and dismiss!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That's your first misconception. Evolutionary theory has no implications for theism whatever. It neither supports nor denies the existance of God.

I think that's why I said "in my opinion." Your opinion is different.

What theories say is not a matter of opinion. It's what they say. And evolutionary theory says nothing at all about God, neither confirming nor denying Him. As you know, theists were the first to discover the mechanism of evolution.

Barbarian observes:
In the same sense that chemistry dismisses the origin of atoms. In science, a theory is only concerned with the things it makes claims about. Evolution, for example, is indifferent to the way life began. It only describes how existing life changes over time.

Doesn't change anything I stated.

More precisely, it refutes what you stated. You are incorrect in assuming that evolution has anything at all to do with the issue of God's existence.

But that leads to another point. "Why" is indifferent to the way life began?

For the same reason chemistry is indifferent to the way matter began. It's not about that. Theories are only about the things they make claims about.

Barbarian observes:
Science isn't about faith. It's about evidence. As a scientists why he accepts evolutionary theory. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's faith. If he starts talking about evidence, it's science. I'm guessing you already know how that would turn out. If not, go give it a try. It will be a revelation for you.

The question of this thread still stands!

It's just that the premise has been demolished.

Whether one is a scientist or not makes little difference in one's "belief" (faith) is when and how life started.

Of course. For example, I have faith that God created life as He says, by natural means, not "ex nihilo." On the other hand, I'm inclined to accept abiogenesis because most of the evidence indicates that it's true. Two entirely different things.

Barbarian observes:
Darwin didn't offer a theory on where it came from, but suggested that God just created the first living things. That would be OK as far as evolutionary theory is concerned. Or it could have been some other way. Wouldn't matter, as far as the theory is concerned. It just assumes life started, without an concern for the way it did.

At best then you are a deist.

Perhaps you don't know what "deist" means. By your standards, God is a deist, since He says he created life from pre-existing creation, not ex nihilo. I'm pretty sure He isn't a deist.

Barbarian observes:
You have to consider what scientists do. They don't need to know where matter came from to do chemistry.

But they have to believe in matter right?

They do have to assume matter exists, just as evolutionary theory assumes living things exist. They seem like pretty good assumptions. So far, they work just fine.

Barbarian observes:
Theologically, God says that life was brought forth by the Earth, which would suggest abiogenesis is correct, but evolutionary theory isn't concerned with that.

Thgeologically it states that God made all things.

Yes. But for some reason, the way He did it in this one case, troubles you.

Genesis 1:24And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

You can deny the obvious in favor of whatever you choose to believe but at least be honest with the scriptures.

An honest reading of this would certainly bring one to acknowledge that the YE doctrine of life ex nihilo cannot be reconciled with God's Word.

Barbarian:
Personally, I think that God did it naturally, as He says in Genesis, but it wouldn't be an issue for evolution, if He had merely "poofed" organisms into being.

The evolutionist believes the same thing. "It just happened."

I'm thinking it's rather odd that a professed Christian would characterize God's creation of life as "it just happened."

Barbarian observes:
Um, no. Never met a biologist who thought that. Sounds sort of like some uneducated creationist's imagination about science.

Then please, by all means, educate this "uneducated" creationist about where life came from.

See above. It turns out that biological research tends to be consistent with God's Word.

You believe that God created life "naturally."

That's what He says. Not ex nihilo. He used nature to produce life.

OK, that's your belief, your faith.

And His Word.

How did God do that?

He doesn't say. Apparently, He didn't think it was important to our salvation.

Did He make a fish that he designed would grow legs, walk on land only to go back in the water and grow fins again?

God is the Creator, not some created "designer." He is the Lord of the universe, and He can do it in any way He chooses.

Barbarian observes:
The evidence indicates it wasn't random. I don't see how it could have been random, given the laws of chemistry and physics.

So then you believe God made something?

God made everything. The only difference between you and me is that I don't mind how He did it.

Barbarian observes:
Again, whatever you've been taught about it, is so far from what science actually says, as to be another thing entirely. Could I suggest that you get a good book on evolution and learn what it's actually about?

This is another predictable pattern of the evolutionist in that they have to "talk down" to others to "appear" so much more knowledgeable and refined!

"Refined?" Have you never noticed how we dress? I'm just pointing out that you'd be a lot more effective against biology if you understood it.

Now as to your question how do you know I don't have books on evolution and have read them?

For one thing, you've asserted all sorts of misconceptions about the theory.

Could I suggest that instead of quibbling you answer the OP?

I already showed you how life began. God says he used nature to make it.

Barbarian observes:
In America, at least, so do the great majority of evolutionists. Gallup poll says that they are the single largest group here.

Proof of the fact that many people that say they believe in God yet discount His word in no way makes the majority correct.

As you learned, the YE doctrine of life ex nihilo is directly contradicted by God's Word in Genesis.

How did life come to be?

God says that the earth brought forth life. I think He's right. The evidence for abiogenesis is certainly consistent with that.

The Bible clearly says that God made all things. Do you deny this? Which Bible do you use?

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.

It is very dangerous to take one scripture and try to build a philosophy on it.

It is more dangerous to reject verses that personally offend you. God says that He created life from nature, the earth brought forth living things according to His will.

I trust He managed that without too much difficulty.

That's an extremely vague point frankly.

I think He did very well with it. No wiggle room there. Life ex nihilo is not possible if you accept His Word as it is.

Barbarian observes:
Still an open question for science, though. Science can't say anything about God. But scientists can. For which I am most grateful to Him.

 

[coelacanth]

Barbarian, I haven't spent much time on this forum lately, but I see you continue to combat unbelievable ignorance and mindless drivel with a steady patience. I commend you for this.

 

[coelacanth]

Well, it didn't take long for an evolutionist to utterly fail in their attempt to answer a fairly straight forward question:

How did life come to be?

Anyone shocked or surprised? I'm not. This is typical. Deflect, discount and dismiss!

Is it comforting to have an answer?

 

[RND]

What theories say is not a matter of opinion. It's what they say. And evolutionary theory says nothing at all about God, neither confirming nor denying Him. As you know, theists were the first to discover the mechanism of evolution.

Wow, that's kinda like talking out of both sides of your mouth! Theist discovered evolution but neither confirm or deny God's existence? That makes them Deists at best!

But that leads to another point. "Why" is indifferent to the way life began?

For the same reason chemistry is indifferent to the way matter began. It's not about that. Theories are only about the things they make claims about.

Chemistry dosen't deny matter so chemistry isn't "indifferent" to matter. Where do you come up with this stuff?

The question of this thread still stands!

It's just that the premise has been demolished.

Unanswered on your part. Heck, even the evolutionist that denies God's existence did better than you did!

Of course. For example, I have faith that God created life as He says, by natural means, not "ex nihilo." On the other hand, I'm inclined to accept abiogenesis because most of the evidence indicates that it's true. Two entirely different things.

Your in simple denial of what scriptures states. You twist scriptures to fit your belief system instead of accepting it by faith. You are purposely ignoring the many scriptures I offered in favor of the one you wish to hold on to.

Perhaps you don't know what "deist" means. By your standards, God is a deist, since He says he created life from pre-existing creation, not ex nihilo. I'm pretty sure He isn't a deist.

I know exactly what deist means. You are in simple denial as to what the scriptures say.

They do have to assume matter exists, just as evolutionary theory assumes living things exist. They seem like pretty good assumptions. So far, they work just fine.

So then what do we do when we want to examine the assumptions?

Yes. But for some reason, the way He did it in this one case, troubles you.

Genesis 1:24And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Not me. "God made..." remember?

Do you deny the obvious?

An honest reading of this would certainly bring one to acknowledge that the YE doctrine of life ex nihilo cannot be reconciled with God's Word.

Your position can only be substantiated by ignoring the obvious.

The evolutionist believes the same thing. "It just happened."

I'm thinking it's rather odd that a professed Christian would characterize God's creation of life as "it just happened."

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort! I believe God made everything. How He made things I cannot say other than He spoke things into existence - I'm dying to see that one day! The evolutionist believe that things "just happened." So, not only do you twist scripture you twist others words.

See above. It turns out that biological research tends to be consistent with God's Word.

You haven't said anything.

That's what He says. Not ex nihilo. He used nature to produce life.

What exactly does that mean?

And His Word.

Not even close!

He doesn't say. Apparently, He didn't think it was important to our salvation.

The word doesn't say it because that isn't the way it happened.

God is the Creator, not some created "designer." He is the Lord of the universe, and He can do it in any way He chooses.

The question remains....why would He do it that way?

God made everything. The only difference between you and me is that I don't mind how He did it.

I don't mind either. But what you are suggesting is that God created and then let "natural processes" take over which is what any good deist would believe.

"Refined?" Have you never noticed how we dress? I'm just pointing out that you'd be a lot more effective against biology if you understood it.

I understand biology just fine. What make you think how you dress has anything to do with how refined one is?

For one thing, you've asserted all sorts of misconceptions about the theory.

I have? I hadn't noticed. Point them out to me if you will.

I already showed you how life began. God says he used nature to make it.

Nope.

As you learned, the YE doctrine of life ex nihilo is directly contradicted by God's Word in Genesis.

Only if one choose to deny the plethora of evidence that "God made."

God says that the earth brought forth life. I think He's right. The evidence for abiogenesis is certainly consistent with that.

The evidence that "God made" is throughout the scriptures. It's a consistent theme.

It is more dangerous to reject verses that personally offend you.

Offended? Your serious?

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.

God says that He created life from nature, the earth brought forth living things according to His will.

God made...

I trust He managed that without too much difficulty.

Considering He spoke thing into existence I doubt anything was a problem for Him.

I think He did very well with it. No wiggle room there. Life ex nihilo is not possible if you accept His Word as it is.

The only way your belief could be valid is to reject scripture in it's entirety.

God made....

Rev 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

 

[RND]

Is it comforting to have an answer?

From an evolutionist? Is it even possible to get an answer from them?

For me personally it makes to matter frankly. I'm just posing the question to expose the fallacy of their argument.

 

[coelacanth]

Is it comforting to have an answer?

From an evolutionist? Is it even possible to get an answer from them?

For me personally it makes to matter frankly. I'm just posing the question to expose the fallacy of their argument.

Fallacy of what argument? I'm what you would call an "evolutionist", and I personally think it is most likely that the self-organizational properties of various minerals, lipids, etc. led to abiogenesis near hydrothermal ocean vents. Straight enough answer for you?

And for the record, thinking you have an answer to that question does not make your argument superior (ie more truthful). Hit me with the blunt brick of reality any day before you tell me fairy tales.

 

[RND]

Fallacy of what argument? I'm what you would call an "evolutionist", and I personally think it is most likely that the self-organizational properties of various minerals, lipids, etc. led to abiogenesis near hydrothermal ocean vents. Straight enough answer for you?

That's your belief, your faith. Yet you have no evidence of any kind that proves your view conclusively.

What type of life in your mind sprung for these thermal vents? When you say "self-organizational properties of various minerals, lipids, etc." did these things also produce and reproduce the necessary enzymes to create DNA?

And for the record, thinking you have an answer to that question does not make your argument superior (ie more truthful).

It does it that I am at least willing to give credit for creation to God instead of insisting "it just happened."

Hit me with the blunt brick of reality any day before you tell me fairy tales.

Your theory is just as much a "fairy tale" as you view my belief to be. I'm at least willing to believe that God created things. You believe they "just happened."

 

[coelacanth]

Fallacy of what argument? I'm what you would call an "evolutionist", and I personally think it is most likely that the self-organizational properties of various minerals, lipids, etc. led to abiogenesis near hydrothermal ocean vents. Straight enough answer for you?

That's your belief, your faith. Yet you have no evidence of any kind that proves your view conclusively.

I say it with quite a large body of experimental evidence in support of it, what evidence have you to the contrary? I certainly give no credence to the nonsense of the Biblical account.

What type of life in your mind sprung for these thermal vents?

Chemoautotrophic life

When you say "self-organizational properties of various minerals, lipids, etc." did these things also produce and reproduce the necessary enzymes to create DNA?

All it takes is a self replicating molecule to be created. Enantiomers can be separated by contact with a mineral surface (ie L-amino acids), lipids can self organize to micelles and membranous shapes in water, etc... a nice environment for a self-replicating molecule to arise

And for the record, thinking you have an answer to that question does not make your argument superior (ie more truthful).

It does it that I am at least willing to give credit for creation to God instead of insisting "it just happened."

Hit me with the blunt brick of reality any day before you tell me fairy tales.

Your theory is just as much a "fairy tale" as you view my belief to be. I'm at least willing to believe that God created things. You believe they "just happened."[/quote]

You say "at least" in a superior hubristic tone of self assurance that you are somehow correct in your thinking. I have cited some evidence, now please show me some of yours.

 

[coelacanth]

You clearly have evolution and abiogenesis merged in your head, and I'm afraid I must dispel you of this profoundly incorrect notion.

Additionally, theories of abiogenesis are not random occurrences but depend distinctly upon the laws of physics and chemistry for life to arise in the form of a self-replicating molecule.

edit: and for that matter, atheism merged in there along with it; also incorrect

 

[RND]

You clearly have evolution and abiogenesis merged in your head,

Without life evolution could not have taken place so they are, unfortunately for your position, related.

and I'm afraid I must dispel you of this profoundly incorrect notion.

Be my guest! Do you believe things began to evolve without life?

Additionally, theories of abiogenesis are not random occurrences but depend distinctly upon the laws of physics and chemistry for life to arise in the form of a self-replicating molecule.

Question: Where did those laws of physics and chemistry come from? For example certain enzymes needed for the formation of DNA come from ammonia and ammonia can only occur in a nitrogen rich environment. How did that come about? Chance or design?

edit: and for that matter, atheism merged in there along with it; also incorrect

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

 

[coelacanth]

You clearly have evolution and abiogenesis merged in your head,

Without life evolution could not have taken place so they are, unfortunately for your position, related.

and I'm afraid I must dispel you of this profoundly incorrect notion.

Be my guest! Do you believe things began to evolve without life?

You are completely missing the point. One can be a theist and believe in evolution. One can believe God got the whole ball rolling by creating the first living thing, for example. I personally am an atheist and you're covering my position without realizing the broad generalities in which you speak are profoundly non-reflective of reality.

Additionally, theories of abiogenesis are not random occurrences but depend distinctly upon the laws of physics and chemistry for life to arise in the form of a self-replicating molecule.

Question: Where did those laws of physics and chemistry come from? For example certain enzymes needed for the formation of DNA come from ammonia and ammonia can only occur in a nitrogen rich environment. How did that come about? Chance or design?[/quote]
We're about to start dealing with anthropic principles here, are you sure you want to do this?

edit: and for that matter, atheism merged in there along with it; also incorrect

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?[/quote]
They slowly co-evolved, and at some arbitrary point you, or humankind in general defined one as "chicken" and one as "egg".

Tell me, how old do you think the earth is?

 

[RND]

I say it with quite a large body of experimental evidence in support of it, what evidence have you to the contrary?

Experimental evidence? What's that besides no evidence at all! :rolling

I certainly give no credence to the nonsense of the Biblical account.

I don't like Anne Murray songs. That doesn't mean she didn't sing them.

Chemoautotrophic life

Question then. Since these type of bacterium can only survive in particular environments how did those bacterium migrate into environments more conducive to carbon based life forms that live on land?

[quote:29e8z912]When you say "self-organizational properties of various minerals, lipids, etc." did these things also produce and reproduce the necessary enzymes to create DNA?

All it takes is a self replicating molecule to be created. Enantiomers can be separated by contact with a mineral surface (ie L-amino acids), lipids can self organize to micelles and membranous shapes in water, etc... a nice environment for a self-replicating molecule to arise[/quote:29e8z912] So you are suggesting then that human DNA was originally developed in a bacterium miles beneath the surface of the ocean? Weren't you the one that mentioned fairy tales?

And for the record, thinking you have an answer to that question does not make your argument superior (ie more truthful).

It does it that I am at least willing to give credit for creation to God instead of insisting "it just happened."

Hit me with the blunt brick of reality any day before you tell me fairy tales.

Your theory is just as much a "fairy tale" as you view my belief to be. I'm at least willing to believe that God created things. You believe they "just happened."

You say "at least" in a superior hubristic tone of self assurance that you are somehow correct in your thinking.

Faith in God and His holy scriptures has a way of doing that sometime. My apologizes. But honestly, how did you get hubris out of me for simply disagreeing with your position? By telling you your view is just as much a "fairy tale" as you view my belief?

Are you often so sensitive?

I have cited some evidence, now please show me some of yours.

You haven't cited any evidence, you postulated your theory. My evidence for creation is you - the fact your here on earth. That God loves you so much as to allow you to postulate ridiculous opinions, devoid of evidence, about how life "just happened" on earth.

2 Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[coelacanth]

coelacanth wrote:
I say it with quite a large body of experimental evidence in support of it, what evidence have you to the contrary?

Experimental evidence? What's that besides no evidence at all!

Why the laughing? You are making no sense.

It's no fairy tale if you understand how evolution works, which I sincerely doubt that you do.

I'm trying to gauge who I'm speaking with here; do you take Genesis literally? Is the earth 6,000 years old?

 

[coelacanth]

On the evidence front, perhaps this is a good place to start:

http://hazen.ciw.edu/research/origins

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
What theories say is not a matter of opinion. It's what they say. And evolutionary theory says nothing at all about God, neither confirming nor denying Him. As you know, theists were the first to discover the mechanism of evolution.

Wow, that's kinda like talking out of both sides of your mouth! Theist discovered evolution but neither confirm or deny God's existence?

No, you've garbled it, again. Evolutionary theory can't say anything about God, but evolutionists can.

That makes them Deists at best!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

But that leads to another point. "Why" is indifferent to the way life began?

Barbarian obeserves:
For the same reason chemistry is indifferent to the way matter began. It's not about that. Theories are only about the things they make claims about.

Chemistry dosen't deny matter so chemistry isn't "indifferent" to matter.

You've gotten confused again. Chemistry is indifferent to the way matter began. Not indifferent to matter.

The question of this thread still stands!

As a caution to people who talk about things, they don't understand.

Unanswered on your part.

I told you several times:
Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

It's just that you don't want to accept what He says about it.

Heck, even the evolutionist that denies God's existence did better than you did!

Creationism and atheism are more comfortable with each other than either is with orthodox Christianity.

Of course. For example, I have faith that God created life as He says, by natural means, not "ex nihilo." On the other hand, I'm inclined to accept abiogenesis because most of the evidence indicates that it's true. Two entirely different things.

Barbarian observes:
Your in simple denial of what scriptures states. You twist scriptures to fit your belief system instead of accepting it by faith. You are purposely ignoring the many scriptures I offered in favor of the one you wish to hold on to.

Perhaps you don't know what "deist" means. By your standards, God is a deist, since He says he created life from pre-existing creation, not ex nihilo. I'm pretty sure He isn't a deist.

I know exactly what deist means.

So far, you've given us no reason to think so.

You are in simple denial as to what the scriptures say.

I showed you want they say. You're uncomfortable with it, because it's incompatible with your belief that God created living things out of nothing.

Barbarian observes:
They do have to assume matter exists, just as evolutionary theory assumes living things exist. They seem like pretty good assumptions. So far, they work just fine.

So then what do we do when we want to examine the assumptions?

Test them. Turns out that matter exists, and living things exist, so chemistry and evolutionary theory are doing fine.

Barbarian observes:
But for some reason, the way He did it in this one case, troubles you.

Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. KJV

And no, I'm not impressed that you found someone published a Bible that was adjusted to your taste. But that's not what you're supposed to do.

Barbarian observes:
An honest reading of this would certainly bring one to acknowledge that the YE doctrine of life ex nihilo cannot be reconciled with God's Word.

Your position can only be substantiated by ignoring the obvious.

It's obvious even your edited version of the Bible denies life ex nihilo. Why cling to it when Scripture says it's not true?

The evolutionist believes the same thing. "It just happened."

You've already learned that is not true.

Barbarian observes:
I'm thinking it's rather odd that a professed Christian would characterize God's creation of life as "it just happened."

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort!

You can't have it both ways.

The evolutionist believe that things "just happened."

I don't think you're doing yourself any good by repeating that when you've learned it's false.






So, not only do you twist scripture you twist others words.

See above. It turns out that biological research tends to be consistent with God's Word.

You haven't said anything.

That's what He says. Not ex nihilo. He used nature to produce life.

What exactly does that mean?

And His Word.

Not even close!

He doesn't say. Apparently, He didn't think it was important to our salvation.

The word doesn't say it because that isn't the way it happened.

God is the Creator, not some created "designer." He is the Lord of the universe, and He can do it in any way He chooses.

The question remains....why would He do it that way?

God made everything. The only difference between you and me is that I don't mind how He did it.

I don't mind either. But what you are suggesting is that God created and then let "natural processes" take over which is what any good deist would believe.

"Refined?" Have you never noticed how we dress? I'm just pointing out that you'd be a lot more effective against biology if you understood it.

I understand biology just fine. What make you think how you dress has anything to do with how refined one is?

For one thing, you've asserted all sorts of misconceptions about the theory.

I have? I hadn't noticed. Point them out to me if you will.

I already showed you how life began. God says he used nature to make it.

Nope.

As you learned, the YE doctrine of life ex nihilo is directly contradicted by God's Word in Genesis.

Only if one choose to deny the plethora of evidence that "God made."

God says that the earth brought forth life. I think He's right. The evidence for abiogenesis is certainly consistent with that.

The evidence that "God made" is throughout the scriptures. It's a consistent theme.

It is more dangerous to reject verses that personally offend you.

Offended? Your serious?

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.

God says that He created life from nature, the earth brought forth living things according to His will.

God made...

I trust He managed that without too much difficulty.

Considering He spoke thing into existence I doubt anything was a problem for Him.

I think He did very well with it. No wiggle room there. Life ex nihilo is not possible if you accept His Word as it is.

The only way your belief could be valid is to reject scripture in it's entirety.

God made....

Rev 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

 

[RND]

Why the laughing? You are making no sense.

Because your hypothesis is nonsense.

It's no fairy tale if you understand how evolution works, which I sincerely doubt that you do.

I understand how evolutionist "think" they understand how evolution works. The fact of the matter is that evolution only works with phenotype and not genotype should give you a clue about the probability of chance your fairy tale is built on! :rolling

I'm trying to gauge who I'm speaking with here; do you take Genesis literally?

Yes, I take the word of God both literally and spiritually.

Is the earth 6,000 years old?

There or about.