How did life begin? (Earth, creation, God, science)

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Linus

What is the difference between that, and you or me killing and eating an animal for food?

Well, there is one difference--when you or I kill to eat for food, we don't mercilessly eat our prey from the inside, while it's still alive, causing a slow and agonizing death. Still, you have a point--what is the difference? If living organisms exist exactly as an intelligent being designed them to, that intelligent being clearly does not care for the suffering of its creations, as that being specifically designed them to kill, maul, and torture other creatures as a necessity in their own selfish struggle to survive.

Besides, Darwin also said, in refference to the natural formation of the human eye, "To suppose that the eye... could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree".

This is taken completely out of context. Let's look at what Darwin actually said:

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 133:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

[emphasis added]

Men have nipples because as a fetus develops it is without a demernimable sex until later stages of development. To ridicule this is to rdicule nature itself.

I'm not ridiculing nature, I'm challenging the notion that every aspect of nature is controlled by an intelligent, beneficent being. Men have nipples because of natural laws, and men have large brains and thumbs and walk upright because of natural laws as well--that is what I am saying.

[Mister Emu]

did God have a 'bad day' during creation where he put nipples on men, gave whales and bats finger bones, and humans problematic tonsils and appendixes

Whales and Bat finger bones - Maybe they used to, or still do, in some way use them.

Tonsils and Appendixes - At one point they may have provided a function, that we have out-grown in some way.

Obviously evolution must agree that at one point all these things had a specific use, else why would we evolve them.

At any rate, I think your example of the koala strongly suggests evolution via impersonal rules of nature being played out, not an intelligent or beneficant suspension thereof.

If Koalas did not always eat eucalyptus why would they start to eat it? If they ate eucalyptus before they "evolved" a bacteria in their stomach how would they have lived?

[kbc_1963]

To believe that the cause of life's beginnings is an intelligent designer is to have faith

According to the subject of this forum we each have faith in either a religion based on a percieved GOD or faith in the presumptions of man (science) and since the presumption of science is that life began by natural means then there are only 2 ways to look at our beginnings;

A) natural chemical interaction becoming life
B) supernatural directed design

if there are any other possibilities please enlighten me.

I can prove by a preponderance of scientific evidence that all current scientific theories are impossible and after many years of intelligent people searching for what they consider "natural" beginnings of life they are left holding a bag of hot air with no provable backing, why should that be? if it was natural and we know and understand all the laws dealing with chemistry then we should be able to easily prove it. we can by design form any environment that could possibly be a foundation for life to form, we can preselect every possible chemical setup and yet our our best minds and all our money can't come up with anything even remotely close to working even on paper, so my conclusion is this;

"I can prove scientific theories wrong but they cannot prove my GOD wrong"

so my belief is justified because if we didnt happen on accident then we happened on purpose and whatever was able to make even the simplest cell more complex than our greatest human achievments I feel is worthy of our worship.

[linwood]

A) natural chemical interaction becoming life
B) supernatural directed design

You`re leaving out the possibilty of extra terrestrial influences.

I can prove by a preponderance of scientific evidence that all current scientific theories are impossible and after many years of intelligent people searching for what they consider "natural" beginnings of life they are left holding a bag of hot air with no provable backing,

I was under the impression that scientists were working on the possabilty of creating life even as we speak, that they have in fact had success in getting to their ultimate goal.
Can anyone else help me out with this?

so my belief is justified because if we didnt happen on accident then we happened on purpose and whatever was able to make even the simplest cell more complex than our greatest human achievments I feel is worthy of our worship.

Even if the origins of life are found to be impossible to re-create on this planet doesn`t default to..."God Did It!!"
It`s an illogical jump.
You claim that since there is no scientific evidence to support natural origins some supernatural being must have done it yet you fail to point out that there is no evidence of a supernatural being.
You must apply the same standards of logic to the entire concept, you cannot give your god a "free pass"

[linwood]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Whales and Bat finger bones - Maybe they used to, or still do, in some way use them.

Actually I`ve seen photos of whale fossils with legs, what did they use those for?

Obviously evolution must agree that at one point all these things had a specific use, else why would we evolve them.

Thats not how evolution works, many mutations don`t work and are either discarded or the species dies out or in the case of vestigal organs remain but have no function.
It`s the mutations that do have benefit that remain and cause evolution.
The fact that so many mutations don`t work is why the argument of intelligent design doesn`t work either.
If life was caused by design there wouldn`t be so many screw ups.

If Koalas did not always eat eucalyptus why would they start to eat it? If they ate eucalyptus before they "evolved" a bacteria in their stomach how would they have lived?

Perhaps they ate something else that slowly began to dissappear from their environment so they began eating small amounts of Eucalyptus and over time developed the necessary bacteria to digest it.

Pure speculation as I know nothing of Koala bears, but it sounds good.

[Mister Emu]

You`re leaving out the possibilty of extra terrestrial influences

That would be under B. "Aliens did it!" is as much "an illogical jump." as "God Did It!!"

I was under the impression that scientists were working on the possabilty of creating life even as we speak, that they have in fact had success in getting to their ultimate goal.

Neither scientists nor labrotories are found in nature

Actually I`ve seen photos of whale fossils with legs, what did they use those for

Can you show me with proof that they have not been doctored, or that the legs didn't come from another animal that drowned or died in another ocean related way?

[linwood]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

That would be under B. "Aliens did it!" is as much "an illogical jump." as "God Did It!!"

No...I`m not necessarily saying that aliens did anything.
Is it not a proven fact that objects not of this earth have landed here?
Is it not possible that some chemical/biological material not known to this world could have been brought here via one of these objects

However claiming aliens exist is not nearly as illogical as claiming a god exists.
The very fact that life exists on this planet is more than enough evidence of the possibility that life exists on another planet somewhere.

We have viewed and tested and examined life in this universe so it is not unlikely there is other life in this universe.
We have not however viewed tested or examined anything supernatural.

Neither scientists nor labrotories are found in nature

Hey!!
That ain`t fair :P
That argument also makes many scientific discoveries invalid..and there`s just too much evidence to the contrary.

Can you show me with proof that they have not been doctored, or that the legs didn't come from another animal that drowned or died in another ocean related way?

No..I can`t since I haven`t seen them in awhile.

I`ll go find some info on them now and post it here..you can decide what you think.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

if there are any other possibilities please enlighten me.

I can prove by a preponderance of scientific evidence that all current scientific theories are impossible and after many years of intelligent people searching for what they consider "natural" beginnings of life they are left holding a bag of hot air with no provable backing, why should that be? if it was natural and we know and understand all the laws dealing with chemistry then we should be able to easily prove it. we can by design form any environment that could possibly be a foundation for life to form, we can preselect every possible chemical setup and yet our our best minds and all our money can't come up with anything even remotely close to working even on paper, so my conclusion is this;

"I can prove scientific theories wrong but they cannot prove my GOD wrong"

You were enlightened

You were proved wrong because your premises are faulty.

Science has already proved God's word wrong.

-pah-

[linwood]

This is the easiest read I could find...

http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/...R1472,00.shtml

Below is vestigal..

I am one of the very privileged few that I know who has extensively studied the skeletal anatomy of humpback whales. They do, in fact have hind limb rudiments. Anyone can see this if they just go to the Milwaukee Public Museum and see for themselves. They have an excellent specimen on display that has the limb rudiments in-place. Take a look at the photograph (admitedly this one does not show the limb details, but the whale is indeed on display for anyone to look at).
-- George; July 22, 2003
(sci.bio.paleontology)

Photo...
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/MPM_PIC.JPG

Below is actual photo and numerous references ..

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...l#atavisms_ex1

I found this essay at talkorigins.
It lays out the evolution of cetaceans(whales) from hoofed animals.
It`s long boring and most definately not for the layman.
But I offer it anyway.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...al/part2b.html