How did God create life?

[shunyadragon]

But, before I leave, please describe in detail how Abiogenesis came about, how the DNA on its own created all forms of life including ourselves.

If you wish to understand the science of abiogenesis came about do your homework, and get the science background of Biology and Chemistry. I have that background. Even though there are many unanswered questions concerning abiogensis, but there is no competing hypothesis proposed based on the evidence. The same is actually true for evolution. What you are presenting is a staged 'argument from ignorance' based on a religious agenda.

DNA does create life on its own, and that is too anthropomorphic and a contrived proposal. DNA is a product of natural laws and processes, and functions based on natural laws and processes.

Even though all the questions have not been answered science has come along way to demonstrating the processes for the natural formation of RNA and DNA. The abiogenesis of RNA is an ongoing research hypothesis.

 

[Grandliseur]

DNA is a product of natural laws and processes, and functions based on natural laws and processes.

Total disagreement here. DNA is programming in a real world kind. Programming does not come to be on its own, especially since the DNA in the cell needs a DNA decoder to work in the first place. While there clearly is a system where changes occur, mutations, and whatnot, you have never seen a one kind of animal become another.

I am not interested in debates on this subject. I have my nailed down perspective, as you have yours. I do not mind if you think yours superior to mine.

 

[Hildeburh]

I would appreciate if you took Darwin out of evolution. There is the science of evolution. Darwin only first proposed the basis for the science of evolution, and it does not belong to him. Science is simply descriptive of the nature of our physical existence. Yes life formed naturally and evolved on earth by the evidence.

Take Darwin out of evolution? How?

Darwin's work was pioneering and still is accepted 150 years after its initial publication as a groundbreaking, so much so that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection forms the basis of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (AKA neo Darwinism). Or are you suggesting we go back to pre-evolution theories such as the ''Great Chain of Being'.

Evolution is a scientific theory within biology not a science in itself and the notion of evolution has a pre Darwinian origin. Even though early theories have not stood the test of time Benoît de Maillet, Erasmus Darwin, Buffon theories all suggested an element of evolutionary change but it was Jean-Baptist Lamarck that was the first to postulate a theory of evolution.

Science is simply descriptive? That is a gross generalisation which denies countless scientific breakthroughs that have improved the quality of our lives.

 

[shunyadragon]

Total disagreement here. DNA is programming in a real world kind. Programming does not come to be on its own, especially since the DNA in the cell needs a DNA decoder to work in the first place. While there clearly is a system where changes occur, mutations, and whatnot, you have never seen a one kind of animal become another.

I am not interested in debates on this subject. I have my nailed down perspective, as you have yours.

Then why bring it up in an aggressive argument from ignorance based on a religious agenda? Your use of 'programming is foolishly mechanistic and anthropomorphic.

Do your homework, and I do not spoon feed. There is abundant evidence of one 'kind?' evolving to another.

I do not mind if you think yours superior to mine.

Over the top foolish sarcasm, and not productive. You are also claiming superiority based on a religious agenda, and claim to ;know' more than science..

 

[Quiddity]

I was hesitant to even contribute. Mostly because I think most people reading the title will watch with an entertainments ear.

I think you know......that no one knows the answer that.

Even more, there is no evidence for God......scientifically speaking.

Proof, yes, but it goes into the abstract, but yet still logical; which ultimately some frown upon but it is in our imagination where knowledge expands. Yes, it can lead to delusion, but it doesn't have to. In fact, it's used in the scientific method when developing hypothesis and searching for answers.

At any rate, if you want an abstract answer as to how things come to be, look at the argument of the unmoved mover or causation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Take Darwin out of evolution? How?

Darwin's work was pioneering and still is accepted 150 years after its initial publication as a groundbreaking, so much so that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection forms the basis of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (AKA neo Darwinism). Or are you suggesting we go back to pre-evolution theories such as the ''Great Chain of Being'.

I fully recognized the contributions of Charles Darwin. You missed the point, as per the thread author. The use of Darwinism, and Darwin's evolution and Neo-Darwinism are most often not flattering, and are often used to contrast evolution against Creationist alternatives such as Intelligent Design. The author of the thread admitted this context. science of evolution has many scientists pioneering the science in the 19th century, and originally proposed as you describe in the following.

[/quote]
Evolution is a scientific theory within biology not a science in itself and the notion of evolution has a pre Darwinian origin. Even though early theories have not stood the test of time Benoît de Maillet, Erasmus Darwin, Buffon theories all suggested an element of evolutionary change but it was Jean-Baptist Lamarck that was the first to postulate a theory of evolution. [/quote]

Again it is not Darwin's evolution, but the science of evolution with many scientists pioneering and contributing to the science.

Science is simply descriptive? That is a gross generalization which denies countless scientific breakthroughs that have improved the quality of our lives.

As a scientist for many years I fully realize that science remains descriptive of the nature of our physical existence. Scientists develop theories and hypothesis and test them using scientific methods. Applied sciences take this knowledge and develop it into the technology we have today. This should not be construed in negative way.

 

[Grandliseur]

claim to ;know' more than science..

I do know more than science if science rejects that God created all things, and animals according to their kind. That is just how things are.

If you don't accept that God did this, your science is going to come up being shown for what it is in those areas.

Jeremiah 8:9 The wise men are confounded, they are dismayed, and taken: for they have cast away the word of the Lord, and there is no wisdom in them.​

While you may not come face to face with your error since none knows when they will die, the fact is that God shall not let his plans come to naught. We are also told that before the end, religion shall be attacked and destroyed. To what extent that shall be I know not; but, even a blind person can see that this is where this world is headed with religion. The word is that this attack shall occur quite suddenly.

​

 

[shunyadragon]

I do know more than science if science rejects that God created all things, and animals according to their kind. That is just how things are.

If you don't accept that God did this, your science is going to come up being shown for what it is in those areas.

Jeremiah 8:9 The wise men are confounded, they are dismayed, and taken: for they have cast away the word of the Lord, and there is no wisdom in them.​

While you may not come face to face with your error since none knows when they will die, the fact is that God shall not let his plans come to naught. We are also told that before the end, religion shall be attacked and destroyed. To what extent that shall be I know not; but, even a blind person can see that this is where this world is headed with religion. The word is that this attack shall occur quite suddenly.

This remains an assertion based on ancient scripture, and not on the evidence, with a dose of evangelical witnessing thrown in, and a lot of salt. Yes you claim to a superior position against science, and yes to know more than science based on a literal understanding of Genesis.

 

[syo]

Exactly. I want to know the process.

he spoke.

 

[Quintessence]

Exactly. I want to know the process.

I tend to echo the general sentiments of folks like @Trailblazer on this topic in that I don't believe that asking or answering this question is important or relevant.

That, and viewing gods as "creators" separate from "creation" is not a thing in my religious tradition. The universe and all of its aspects are the gods for me. Thus, the gods are life. Want to understand life? Study biological sciences. Read some of the old lore and folk tales. Go with what inspires you.

 

[shunyadragon]

he spoke.

Does not address the question of process?

 

[shunyadragon]

I tend to echo the general sentiments of folks like @Trailblazer on this topic in that I don't believe that asking or answering this question is important or relevant.

That, and viewing gods as "creators" separate from "creation" is not a thing in my religious tradition. The universe and all of its aspects are the gods for me. Thus, the gods are life. Want to understand life? Study biological sciences. Read some of the old lore and folk tales. Go with what inspires you.

The question was coached in the context of a claim of Intelligent Design, and of course fallible human will most likely never know the 'exact' way 'How God or not God Created(?) our physical existence, but the question can be addressed on more level ground as science can reasonably describe how our physical existence, our universe, life and humanity came about, giving room for the fact that there remains unanswered questions.

Many Christian philosophers quote Darwin directly as representing the science of evolution using the misnomers such as Darwinism to argue against science as describing a natural evolution independent of religious beliefs, such as Alvin Plantinga.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Exactly. I want to know the process.

I'm not sure he did. I think He just shared it.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure he did. I think He just shared it.

Still remains the thread is about 'What is the process?' and this did not address the question.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Still remains the thread is about 'What is the process?' and this did not address the question.

Well, he breathed it into Adam. As to how other things got the breath of life I don't think the Bible says.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, he breathed it into Adam. As to how other things got the breath of life I don't think the Bible says.

Well, he breathed it into Adam. As to how other things got the breath of life I don't think the Bible says.

OK! Clearer now. You are taking a strict Biblical view of How. I do not believe this is supported by the evidence.

 

[Orbit]

I was very convinced by this book: https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Not...preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

He posits that a universe CAN come into being from nothing. In other words there doesn't have to be a God to start it off.

 

[Truthseeker]

Exactly. I want to know the process.

God created the Universe in such a way that life could be created and evolve Whether God aided the process or whether it only evolved naturally I don't know and I don't think anybody knows.

 

[Truthseeker]

If you wish to understand the science of abiogenesis came about do your homework, and get the science background of Biology and Chemistry. I have that background. Even though there are many unanswered questions concerning abiogensis, but there is no competing hypothesis proposed based on the evidence. The same is actually true for evolution. What you are presenting is a staged 'argument from ignorance' based on a religious agenda.

DNA does create life on its own, and that is too anthropomorphic and a contrived proposal. DNA is a product of natural laws and processes, and functions based on natural laws and processes.

Even though all the questions have not been answered science has come along way to demonstrating the processes for the natural formation of RNA and DNA. The abiogenesis of RNA is an ongoing research hypothesis.

We are not supposed to be debating here.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was very convinced by this book: https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Not...preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

He posits that a universe CAN come into being from nothing. In other words there doesn't have to be a God to start it off.

True, but word of caution the nothing referred to in this book is the Quantum nothing, and not the absolute nothing of philosophy/theology. The Quantum nothing is a Quantum zero point energy world with Quantum gravity.