Evolutionist can't answer the most important question of all

wrote in message
...

Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
existence?

Evolutionists don't have to answer that question, because it's not a
question about evolution.

However, abiogenesis does intrigue biologists, who have come up with various
hypotheses. We know the early Earth was rich with organic chemicals. We know
these chemicals react in a myriad complex ways. All that's needed for life
to form is for self-replicating molecules to arise. Prions and DNA are
examples of such molecules.

However, the exact process remains unkown, so the most honest answer a
scientist can give is "We don't know...yet". This does not imply "Goddidit".

Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
life.

This idea applies to modern organisms, and not to the primitive pre-life
organic processes that existed on Earth.

So how do evolutionists explain the source of life?

They don't have to - it's outside of their field.

According to
the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
on the earth were far different”!

Indeed.

Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing.

And that gap is closing. Your god of the gaps is running out of places to
hide.

Michael
Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAAAHAHAHAH!

says: “Between a
living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
as a crystal or a snowflake,

What about organic chemicals? Amino acids? Nucleic acids? Proteins? Prions?
Viruses? They exist in the "gap" between crystals and the simplest cells.

there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
it is possible to conceive.”

Michael Denton is a creationist. He needs a gap to hide his god in.

The idea that nonliving material could
come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
impossible.

Argument from ignorance.

The Bible

is a crock of ****...

’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in
that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
facts.

Is god living? If not, then Pasteur's theory (which YOU hold to be absolute
and applicable to all life) does not hold. If god is living, where did he
come from? Because as you say, "life must come from life".

On 30 Jun 2005 15:02:29 -0000, drained his
beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed
the following

Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
existence?

I direct your attention to an experiment conducted over fifty years
ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

This showed that under the right conditions, the building blocks of
life form almost over night. This was in a very small chamber.
Imagine what you'd get on an entire planet.

Then we have recent research involving black smokers.

http://science.uniserve.edu.au/schoo...droventwq.html

From what we can tell, biogenisis is going on constantly at deep sea
thermal vents.

You need to catch up on your reading.
--

Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

wrote:

Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
life.

So how do evolutionists explain the source of life?

.......as you say, years ago we understood very little or we got it
wrong.

Given time man may well discover the origin of life, until then we must
use all the indicators we have to show a general direction; and all of
these indicators point in the same direction, they point to evolution.

Only recently a British/Japanese team working in the Pacific Ocean send
a vehicle 1.5 miles to the bottom of the sea. Here next to the hot
spouts [there are many apparently] an entire different life form was
found living off the oxyen and hot bubbly water exiting from below the
ocean bottom. This amply illustrates how life evolves and certaily puts
to rest the silly notion that a god created everything. Including
mosquitos that kill millions of babies evry year.

According to
the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
on the earth were far different”!

Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a
living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
it is possible to conceive.”

aaaah yes these gaps may not be conceivable to the human mind, but time
means nothing in the universe. how many stars are there estimated now?
i think it runs now into billions.

The idea that nonliving material could
come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
impossible.

See above. nothing is impossible, given time and our concept of time is
limited

The Bible’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in
that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
facts.

ROFL 'FACTS'! ROFL: again

wrote in message
...

Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
life.

Darwinism thinks that "life" means a collection of chemicals. It neither
inquires into nor desires to have any knowledge of the soul, which is
actually alive.

Modern so-called "science" in general is afflicted with the same ignorance.
Therefore, with half their brains tied behind their backs, modern so-called
"scientists" are busy inventing more and more gadgets for us to to play with
and divert our attention while we plunge headlong toward the repeated birth,
death, disease, and old age that "science" is utterly helpless to
counteract.

In a few hundred more years, there'll be nothing to eat but silicon chips,
aluminum scraps, used oil, and scientists, with a sprinkling of lawyers and
politicians on the side.

wrote in message
oups.com...


bob young wrote:
wrote:

So how do evolutionists explain the source of life?

......as you say, years ago we understood very little or we got it
wrong.

The first Damm honest reply I have seen ever. You should recieve and
award for your remark.

What shall we call it:

Honest Evolutionist Award or Honest Atheist Award?

I don't think "we'll" call it anything. Are you an atheist?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist

Clayton Doesn't Believe In Sex Before Rigor-Mortis wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 30 Jun 2005 15:02:29 -0000, wrote:


Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
life.

Are you really this stupid, or just being dishonest?

1. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist".

There is no mafia neither ;-)



2. Evolution has nothing to say on the origins of life.

Without an Origin of life, evolution can not be discussed.


3. Abiogenesis research has discovered more than you realise.


And it still can't be done in a test tube.



What....is there a fourth grade outing on the Usenet today? You don't seem
to have the most fundamental understanding of either science or logic....so
you're pretty much making a fool of yourself!


School Holidays start here this weekend ...Friday ( today ) all the
teachers in NSW were on strike ...... kind of explains a lot .....

--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels

Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?

kathryn wrote:
So where did god come from?

Get back to everyone when you get an understanding of space-time. You seem
to not comprehend that. You are caught up in the simplistic idea that a
Creator (or anything else for that matter) that is outside of space-time
still has a beginning and therefore conforms to "cause and effect".

--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

DanielSan wrote:
Atheists do not say "it was all a random fluke."

Interesting. Do you contend that athiests do not believe in random
materialism?


Interesting that no new life forms have been created since the
appearance of Man.

Are you sure?

Show me some.

And why aren't new life forms appearing all the time out of
inorganic material today?

They may very well are. We just don't know how to test for it yet.

We know how to identity something being a living organism. Or do you
contend that humans cannot do that?

Define "life" please.

You don't even know what a living organism is?!?!?!?

--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
"El Bleacho" writes:

Interesting that no new life forms have been created since the
appearance of Man. And why aren't new life forms appearing all the
time out of inorganic material today? We have plenty of inorganic
material left on this planet.

The fundamental reason that abiogenesis only happens once is
pretty simple: there exist plenty of life-forms on this planet that
regard the building blocks of life as a meal, ready-to-eat.

Actually, I have read many scientific journals that suggest that life
started dozens of times, only to be killed off by different occurrances.


--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:35:07 GMT, wrote:

kathryn wrote:
So where did god come from?

Get back to everyone when you get an understanding of space-time. You seem
to not comprehend that. You are caught up in the simplistic idea that a
Creator (or anything else for that matter) that is outside of space-time
still has a beginning and therefore conforms to "cause and effect".


Still drinking animal boy?



This space for rent