sorry, your links do not prove life came from non life.
I dont need to Leo - the fact that I am here typing this and you are reading this is proof that life came from non life.
the question that remains is HOW it happened
sorry, your links do not prove life came from non life.
Actually I'm quite open to accepting answers
No need to bring religion in it.
That's about the fattest of whoppers you've told so far. You don't accept answers, you ignore them in favor of your "mistaken assumptions and wrongheaded approaches"
There is very good reason to do so. It is the interpretations of religion that deny evolution, or did you miss that?
Already answered.But the reason I brought has nothing to do with religious interpretation but rather the how science itself interprets by allowing for simple-explanations as a standard (which has nothing to do with the scientific method)
Really science should also look into what they are really saying and what they actually know. I do not mean that in any disrespectful way, it is just that theory gets mixed up with actual facts. It is safe to say that at this point science does not know how life started, and they don't know if it could have happened without creation. Because science thinks that their idea about evolution is correct and some are saying even fact, they assume that life must have started without a creator.No scientist or careful representative of the current state of scientific knowledge will say that the "first organism" was a mold or bacterium.
Molds and bacteria are far too complex to have been the earliest living beings, or anything like them.
One of the consequences of Darwinian theory, the current established theory of evolutionary development and the current most likely hypothesis for the governing pattern of abiogenesis, si that there was no "first organism" - that the transition from inanimate to animate organization happened over a long time and involved thousands of intermediate, essentially unclassifiable, entities of different kinds - almost certainly very unlike anything "alive" today.
That is all. You should, some day, acquaint yourself with the basics of evolutionary theory. It's really interesting stuff, although a bit difficult to get the hang of for most people (human brains have a hardwired bias for "cause and effect" explanations of things).
No what SHOULD happen is that you look at what science actually says and what it knows, not what you think it does.Really science should also look into what they are really saying and what they actually know.
Science does not even consider "creation".It is safe to say that at this point science does not know how life started, and they don't know if it could have happened without creation.
No what SHOULD happen is that you look at what science actually says and what it knows, not what you think it does.
Science does not even consider "creation".
I believe in and have evidence to support my stand. The only time trolling comes up is when ones , can't support their ideas, and want to stop the exposure, of their beliefs.I concur- I am amazed that moderators don't take action against his obvious trolling.
Peace be unto you
Capacity?in what capacity are you using the word 'science'?
Strawman.The truth is that science does not know how life started!
Then present it.I also intend to show from the evidence from science itself that evolution is not correct. I use scientific evidence. So this is not just my opinion. It is based on evidence.
And everyone who has nay knowledge in this area agress with that statement, as long as you take off the exclamation mark. The exclamation mark (!) implies surprise that this is the case. There is no surprise. Our ignorance in this area is well known and steadily diminishing.The truth is that science does not know how life started!
Please do exactly this. Several of us are waiting to disassemble your 'arguments'.And now I would like to get into evolution so that we can discuss that.
Hay,
Doesn't know yet.
You are simply stuck in time. You want all the answers even where there are none yet. This does not make evolution wrong, because there is not evidence against evolution only gaps in the evidence for.
Those gaps are closing everyday and will continue to close. If we find evidence against evolution then the theory will be re-examined, depending on what that evidence is.
The problem is that you are claiming creation out of nothing, just as we are, yet you aren't offering your evidence of where or what that source is.
I have a question for you.
Do you believe that life was created by a god ? and if so, is that life special to earth only, IOW, based on a religious belief for our origin.
If so, please let us know what god it is. So that we can then examine the evidence of your claim.
Otherwise, you and I will have to wait until we have an answer. It may not happen in our lifetimes. But then again, just think of all that we have discovered in the past 200 years.
I do believe in a creator. I also believe that the creation we see on this earth is for this earth. I also think that the evidence from science supports this. From the start to life and the fossil records and many other proofs as well. It isn't just a religious belief though. That is why I am talking with science, this discussion is just about science. A creator and who he is , doesn't affect this at this point. Because what science has found and has evidence for, should stand on it's own.I have a question for you.
Do you believe that life was created by a god ? and if so, is that life special to earth only, IOW, based on a religious belief for our origin.
If so, please let us know what god it is. So that we can then examine the evidence of your claim.
Otherwise, you and I will have to wait until we have an answer. It may not happen in our lifetimes. But then again, just think of all that we have discovered in the past 200 years.
No. There isn't any faith involved. As previously stated science is quite comfortable saying "we don't know"That is why I said it takes faith in science that they will be proved correct in the future as they learn more.
Which is true.But at the same time science says it bases in findings on evidence and not assumptions.
And you still fail to understand the point and the import of experiments.And if science can get to the point that they can create life in a lab, that 's all it shows. The experiments do not show that it could happen on it's own, or did happen that way. And the experiments are not accurate because science wants to do it fast, rather than work at it for a million years, with all the variables that would include.
Going by the evidence so far the ONLY head buried in the sand is yours.It doesn't do science nay good to bury their head in the sand about this.
No, it's a religious belief.I do believe in a creator. I also believe that the creation we see on this earth is for this earth. I also think that the evidence from science supports this. From the start to life and the fossil records and many other proofs as well. It isn't just a religious belief though.
So far the only talking you've done with/ about science is to distort it.That is why I am talking with science, this discussion is just about science.
You haven't established anything, all you've done is repeat what science itself has said.I have already established that science doesn't know how life started
Yes they are.The thing is, that science and creation are really not at odds at all.
Then perhaps the fist replicating life form was just a replicating molecule! Molecules can replicate themselves, especially in the presence of a catalyst. Eventually, the molecule not only replicated itself, it also produced other useful molecules, in other words, there was the evolution of specialized function.
But to just accept something, is not what science is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be about evidence.I find that Science uses a method to accept some hypothesis; this method is shown to be not always correct.
That is:
They accept the 'simplest' explanation....
In other words I believe anything that is part of a theory due to the above method is untrustworthy- that includes a lot of things now...
Peace be unto you
Not all of science, there are some who go against the dogma.No what SHOULD happen is that you look at what science actually says and what it knows, not what you think it does.
Science does not even consider "creation".
But you do think that science will be proved correct in the future with more research? That is the same with religions, also, they believe God will be proved true. For some it is a belief that science will find be the answer. That is faith.No. There isn't any faith involved. As previously stated science is quite comfortable saying "we don't know"
Which is true.
And you still fail to understand the point and the import of experiments.
Going by the evidence so far the ONLY head buried in the sand is yours.
No, it's a religious belief.
So far the only talking you've done with/ about science is to distort it.
You haven't established anything, all you've done is repeat what science itself has said.
Yes they are.