Yes, research shows life COULD start spontaneously (hell, church, Revelation)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe we already have. The biochemicals have been found in quantity in gas clouds out in space.
Where did they come from?
Quote:
Yep. The evidence is there.
And the evidence for creation is there.
Quote:
Glad you don't mind. Lots of people seem to, otherwise I don't know why they keep trying to dismiss the evidence FOR evolution. I'm not asking for anything about God except that his pawprints are there in bioforms. the argument for design do not work. The evidence is for common biological origin.
But you are not giving any evidence. That is the whole problem. All you are doing is dismissing the evidence FOR evolution on the grounds that it isn't happening fast enough to convince you.
I understand what you're saying. But I want to point out that we have at LEAST as much evidence for the existence of God as we do evolution.
Just... No.
You have no empirical evidence for God, if I am mistaken please point me to it.
Speciation via evolution - we have the fossil record, we have DNA, we have mathematical confirmation of the basic model via genetic algorithms, we have observed speciation in the lab, we have ongoing studies monitoring what appears to be speciation in the wild.
Abiogenisis - we have several hypothesis, we have tested the feasibility of some mechanisms, but still do not have a definitive theory. At the core is, we don't know, but we have some ideas.
Cosmology - we have solid evidence for the age of the universe, and its expansion from CMBR. We have good models for the formation of planets and can observe this. Our current physics does a good job modelling what we can observe today.
Cosmic Origens - We have evidence that leads us to the idea of a singularity, and an inflationary expansion immediately after time t=0. Before that we don't know.
Significantly more evidence than Genesis 1...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
We believe that God created the universe. You're the one arguing that life evolved....but you're ignoring the basic question of how the universe got here.
We are not ignoring, we just don't know. In the absence of evidence, that is the correct answer...
Just... No.
You have no empirical evidence for God, if I am mistaken please point me to it.
The existence of the universe, common design, etc.
Quote:
Speciation via evolution - we have the fossil record, we have DNA, we have mathematical confirmation of the basic model via genetic algorithms, we have observed speciation in the lab, we have ongoing studies monitoring what appears to be speciation in the wild.
Those same things could easily point to a common creator.
Quote:
Abiogenisis - we have several hypothesis, we have tested the feasibility of some mechanisms, but still do not have a definitive theory. At the core is, we don't know, but we have some ideas.
So do it. Make it happen. If it's just a case of combining the right chemicals....do it.
Quote:
Cosmology - we have solid evidence for the age of the universe, and its expansion from CMBR. We have good models for the formation of planets and can observe this. Our current physics does a good job modelling what we can observe today.
OK?
Quote:
Cosmic Origens - We have evidence that leads us to the idea of a singularity, and an inflationary expansion immediately after time t=0. Before that we don't know.
And prior to that singularity? What caused that singularity?
Quote:
Significantly more evidence than Genesis 1...
Genesis 1 was never intended as a scientific text. I know you've heard that before, but think about that. It's intention is not to describe specifically how God did it -- it only says he did.
Quote:
We are not ignoring, we just don't know. In the absence of evidence, that is the correct answer...
-NoCapo
But you are saying that you KNOW that God doesn't exist. You don't know what...but you claim to KNOW that there couldn't be a Creator.
Those same things could easily point to a common creator.
Only if your creator operated on an evolutionary timescale, using mutaion and natural selection... Did he?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Genesis 1 was never intended as a scientific text. I know you've heard that before, but think about that. It's intention is not to describe specifically how God did it -- it only says he did.
So you have no testable hypothesis, no model to validate or falsify, only observation... Sounds like the idea of a creator, from a scientific point of view hasn't even gotten off the ground, and you have the temerity to criticize a working theory, that while not complete, makes repeatable testable predictions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
But you are saying that you KNOW that God doesn't exist. You don't know what...but you claim to KNOW that there couldn't be a Creator.
Full stop! Don't lie Viz, God doesn't like that, remember? I have never stated that I know a god does not exist, only that I have not seen any credible evidence for the proposition. I fully believe that a god is possible, just not in evidence.
Only if your creator operated on an evolutionary timescale, using mutaion and natural selection... Did he?
So you have no testable hypothesis, no model to validate or falsify, only observation... Sounds like the idea of a creator, from a scientific point of view hasn't even gotten off the ground, and you have the temerity to criticize a working theory, that while not complete, makes repeatable testable predictions.
Full stop! Don't lie Viz, God doesn't like that, remember? I have never stated that I know a god does not exist, only that I have not seen any credible evidence for the proposition. I fully believe that a god is possible, just not in evidence.
Because buildings don't replicate themselves. If they did, hen they could make small errors each time a new building is made, and some of those errors might be advantageous, leading to increased reproductive success for buildings with them, and voila! They're evolving.
But to compare something that replicates with something that doesn't is a false analogy. Reproduction is key to evolution.
Because buildings don't replicate themselves. If they did, hen they could make small errors each time a new building is made, and some of those errors might be advantageous, leading to increased reproductive success for buildings with them, and voila! They're evolving.
But to compare something that replicates with something that doesn't is a false analogy. Reproduction is key to evolution.
I'll be polite. Your post makes no sense. It sounds like something you pulled out of a hat without much thought. Buildings exist. They were designed. OK. And???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Colonial Girl
What created your creator? Hmm?
Yawn...If I have to answer that you have not been paying attention. But since I suspect that is the case: Bible 101. God is without beginning or end. Look it up... Psalm 103:17. From everlasting to everlasting.
I'll be polite. Your post makes no sense. It sounds like something you pulled out of a hat without much thought. Buildings exist. They were designed. OK. And???
She doesn't make sense? Unlike you she certainly does make sense...You are comparing a inanimate building with life and you think that makes some kind of sense?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.