jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (181 posts)

How do evolution scientists explain the beginning of life?

  1. rocketjsqu profile image80
    rocketjsquposted 6 years ago

    If all life forms evolved from a single organism, where did the first organism originate from?  It seems to me that to classify the science of evolution as scientific fact that they would need to establish a basis from where to begin, with an answer to this question.  My research has led me to conclude that the theory of evolution and the science of genetics and DNA does not conclusively determine that all living creatures originated from the same source.  The evidence strongly suggests similar design components that can be identified in all living creatures.  This only suggests to me that they have similar characteristics not that they originated from the same source.  If we all have similar design characteristics, would that suggest an intelligent designer or creator?

    1. Shahid Bukhari profile image60
      Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The "evolutionists" are a special breed of Thinkers ... To them, everything in Existence ... like Hobbs, Locke, and Rousseau's Social Contract Theory ... was suddenly Effected into Being ... out of nowhere !

      The Social Contract, is Philosophically presumed as a most Civil Act, of the Individuals, composing the human society, in one set, giving up certain Rights, In, favor of the other set, and the other set, Reciprocating the noble gesture ... most Nobly...

      I can only say ... "Who needs to have a Social Contract guaranteeing Civilized behavior, in such an already highly Civilized Society" ... But this is how Theory, and Philosophy work.

      In Science too, Life is supposed to Be, in the most improbable of circumstances ... yet, believed to be the Truth of Existential Reality !

      And like the rest of their Rational and Scientific Definings ... To them, the Existential Totality, simply ... Self-Exists ... in what at best, can be defined as an Irrational, an Illogical, and Counter to all Scientific Concepts based Corpus, of Scientific and Philosophical Beliefs of  Seculars, regarding the State of Being.

      The matter, of the Beginning of Life, is no exception to this general Rule ... For though they Reject Creation, per se, yet they stubbornly cling on to the Idea, that Life, Just somehow, emerged from a Primordial Soup ... and over countless eons, has self-evolved into the Existent ... the Perfect Living Forms ... !

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry you don't understand. sad

        1. Shahid Bukhari profile image60
          Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What, or Who ... ?

      2. superwags profile image80
        superwagsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Shahid, the evolutionists are not "a special breed of thinker", they are everybody with a brain, who's had basic schooling.

        1. Shahid Bukhari profile image60
          Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for the personal comments, but since these, as usual, are political and public in nature, I have to reply.

          I suggest, you should "watch" Harun Yahya's Treatment of the Idea of Evolution, from the pragmatic angle...  Quranic Words, supported by fairly comprehensive graphic depictions ... in him relying on your face saving, Movie making technology.

          And while I am certain, that you will also deny his researches, as patchy and of one, lacking basic schooling, you might be able to relate easily, with the Basic Version, for he speaks your lingo, and reproduces your high-tech orientated Pictures ... Therefore, rationally speaking; you should find him enlightening ...

          You see, I am building the Bridge, between Sciences and Belief ... not preventing, the times required Reconciliations ...perhaps you realize, that True Foundations are now the Required, and I am laying them, for future Human Cognitions, and Actions ...

          Such Foundation laying, involves the discarding of the existing brittle nonsense, forming the basis of a false belief ... Theory and Sciences, vis a vis The Truth of Existential's Reality.

          So it might help you later on ... if you remembered, that now ... Sciences and Philosophy, Begin, at the Point, of my Definitive conclusions, about the Existent's Origins, and the Existential's Reality.

          Goodbye once again, my friends.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Good grief. A few days ago you were calling atheists evil and praying to your Invisible Super Being (which I understand is a different Invisible Super Being to the Kristian one) to save you from their evil.

            This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.

            You do not know our origins. You have no Definitive Conclusions. You have Irrational Belief.

            Good bye cousin.

    2. superwags profile image80
      superwagsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "If all life forms evolved from a single organism, where did the first organism originate from? It seems to me that to classify the science of evolution as scientific fact that they would need to establish a basis from where to begin, with an answer to this question."

      Science has no conclusive proof as to what caused the very first organism. There's no shame in this in science. It is untrue that this in anyway impacts our understading of evolution because it has nothing to do with it. Newton could formulate the laws of gravity without understanding why gravity exists or where it came from.

      "My research has led me to conclude that the theory of evolution and the science of genetics and DNA does not conclusively determine that all living creatures originated from the same source."

      You "research" is wrong. Luca can be attributed to be the last common ancestor of all living things on earth today - this has been known for more than 50 years.

      "The evidence strongly suggests similar design components that can be identified in all living creatures.  This only suggests to me that they have similar characteristics not that they originated from the same source."

      You are wrong, completely wrong - if your research into genetics was worth writing about, then you'd know this.

      "If we all have similar design characteristics, would that suggest an intelligent designer or creator?"

      No, as I've just explained, your previous assumption was wrong - I suspect that this conclusion has little to do with your "research" into genetics and DNA.

      1. rocketjsqu profile image80
        rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        LUCA is inclusive:  http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfron … ticle.html

        Aside from declaring I am wrong, do you have any scientific data you would like to share that will contribute to the discussion?

        1. superwags profile image80
          superwagsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No, I'm not going to embark on a pointless charade with you of preseting evidence - you made up your mind a long time ago. If you're that bothered; google has the answers. And we have had - for the past 150 odd years.

          As you've said; you've taken time out to learn about genetics - can you explain why an ant's eye spot occupies the same position on its genome as a humans? Stunning coincidence, wouldn't you say?

          1. rocketjsqu profile image80
            rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No I can't explain why an ants eye spot occupies the same position on its genome as a human nor do I claim to be an expert in genetics.  I was hoping to be able to learn something from this forum thread.  So far what I've learned has little to do with evolution or genetics. 

            Does it?  Neither can any information I have been able to locate on the internet. If you can share with me where I can find this information I would be happy to research it.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              We are related. Simple innit. wink

              Odd you were unable to find this information. Do you have a religious version of google installed or something? lol

              1. rocketjsqu profile image80
                rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, its called Godgle. lol

            2. superwags profile image80
              superwagsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              All animals have the same gene in their genome to provide the information for eyes/ eye spots to form. It's known as the Pax 6 gene and initially startled geneticists as it had always been presumed that eyes were the result of convergent evolution across the broader families of animals.

              What pax 6 showed us is that eyes developed from a far earlier time (around the time of the Cambrian explosion 600mya) perhaps first in jellyfish.

              As I say, this was completely unexpected until the gradual decoding of the genome in the 90s. Science had to rewrite its opinions in the matter. It's terrfically strong evidence as to evolution, wouldn't you say? Darwin predicted all of this in "origins", but the modern decoding of the genomes confirms his predictions day on day.

              It's fascinating stuff. Look up "Pax 6" as a taster to the genes responsible in this instance, but it's true for an awful lot more.

              As always with these things, it's a bit of a an ongoing project to work out where eyes first originated, but here's an interresting article about Pax 6's appearance in jellyfish...

              http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro … imal-eyes/

        2. Beelzedad profile image58
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Before offering any scientific data, you should spend a little time trying to formulate an intelligent question, one that is relative to the discussion and one that actually makes sense. smile

    3. Mikeydoes profile image78
      Mikeydoesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Don't you think scientists are trying to figure it out to get a clearer picture?

      Why is it always about proving each other's group wrong. Neither of you are entirely right, and if you are we can't prove the big bang theory is even how our universe formed, in fact it may have been inflated. We need your hypotheses, BUT if you want to say that you are right PROVE IT. You can't, so how about instead of fighting with each other, you go do experiments and come up with something that has been plaguing mankind since the beginning of time.

      How about instead of saying one guy is wrong, and saying your right.. You realize that you really don't know.

      All of you are missing all of the great things happening on a daily basis. Your judgement are so terrible you don't even know what real news is, or what real science is.

      Science is not FACT it is a system we use in order to understand things. And to me finding out new things is what keeps me excited. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110406/sc … seabranson
      Like that for instance.. That is real news.
      Also there is a great story on a new private jet! Both are for exploring!! Something none of our ancestors got to do. And with all this knowledge in front of us, we can LEARN and enjoy life in that regard..

      Look at the data and experiments and gather your own conclusions and use your own imagination. Because we may not know in our lifetime, but we certainly got to experience what our ancestors all dreamed about. Stop fighting and start figuring things out for yourself. The internet is all you need. Stop being stubborn.

    4. canadawest99 profile image60
      canadawest99posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We evolved from a simpler form that was a precursor to life - long chain proteins and amino acids originating from our carbon rich atmosphere and liquid water and possible seeded with more complex elements from comets.

      There is no creator - you are just a lightening strike in a puddle of primordial goo.

      1. earnestshub profile image86
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        .... and loving it! smile

    5. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have written a hub about unintelligent design that addresses some of this.  So you think human tails & extra breasts & nipples indicate intelligent design?
      Scientists have a lot more to go on than just how things look - ie fossil record, DNA studies etc
      Some people would rather believe they came from mud and a rib or an egg left behind by the gods
      BTW, evolution doesn't attempt to answer how life first originated, it assumes life was already underway. Evolution is about how new species come about

    6. Beelzedad profile image58
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who said that all life evolved from a single organism?

      Some 4-5 billion years ago, the earth was a very different environment than today, our atmosphere contained no oxygen, for example. However, the conditions provided favorable conditions for the first phospholipid compounds to form RNA and DNA organic molecules, absorbing proteins and evolving into single cell organisms. This was occurring on many parts of the planet at that time. Note the plural form of the word "organism". smile

      1. rocketjsqu profile image80
        rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Was it 4 or 5 billion?  That's a pretty wide estimate...1 billion years.  How did scientists come up with that number?  If they are estimating the date, is it possible they are estimating the conditions at the time?  And if they are estimating the conditions are they estimating other parts of their theory?  Just asking.  Looking for answers.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Really? You think the hubpages forum is the place to look for these answers? lol lol

          It was 4.54 billion years actually. Hope that is close enough for ya.

          What you really mean is - you want to cast doubt on scientific knowledge and understanding in order to tell us wot god sed.

          No wonder your religion has been causing wars for so long.

          Liars for Jesus (TM) sad

        2. Beelzedad profile image58
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well, they didn't pull it out of thin air, obviously.

          In fact, the age of the earth was determined through a number of different methods which agreed with observations of our sun and solar system and their estimated age as well. There is plenty of information regarding these methods if you took the time to actually do the research.

           

          Yes, they are estimating the conditions as well and understand the conditions of the early earth. For example, our atmosphere didn't just suddenly appear out of nowhere. Our oceans and land masses in their current forms did not just appear. smile

        3. superwags profile image80
          superwagsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It's 4.54 billion (with well defined error bars). We know that this is the case because of radiometric dating of rocks - though not carbon dating as you suggested earlier because this is only accurate to approximately 60,000 years and something that was once living, obviously.

          We infact use quite a few different isotopes which correspond to one another, which is why we can be so confident. Argon, lead, potassium, thoriom, uranium etc. If this technique is wrong then we're going to have to completely rewrite physics and non-organic chemistry. This seems therefore, unlikely.

          We also correspond the ages of rocks from earth, the moon and meteors and find them to be roughly the same age (because all of these rocks were created around the same time as they are all within our solar system).

          We can also use evidence from the mantle of the earth and the evidence of the age of our sun, both of which strongly evidence the earth and the solar system to be 4.5 billion years old.

          There is really no debate about this, in all honesty.

    7. thisisoli profile image57
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If you do some research in to this you will see that this question has already been answered by scientists.

    8. Beelzedad profile image58
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Research? Please, you are insulting every ones intelligence with an utterly ridiculous statement. Anyone can see you didn't do one iota of research.



      Hilarious. That is the extent of your so-called research? LOL!

    9. Jesus was a hippy profile image59
      Jesus was a hippyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If you want to know how life can arise from non life, then study the term "abiogenesis"

      It is a theory that explains how elements can come together and react within the laws of physics (we all know that chemicals react (animate) with eachother which is the requirement of life (animation)).

      As for your common creator, the evidence you have for that is the same as the evidence for that of the same ancestor. The only difference is, that you made up the part about the creator. The evidence does not suggest that.

      Just to go off on a small slightly related tangent here, if we were created by a perfect being and created in his image, then why arent we perfect?

      Why does history show that over 99% of every species that ever existed has gone extinct?

      Does god create new species all the time or did he do them all in one go because evidence shows that not all animals where here at the same time.

      This kind of blows the "everything was created at the same time (the beginning)" right out the window.

  2. dingdondingdon profile image59
    dingdondingdonposted 6 years ago

    The first organism, like everything else, ultimately originated from the Big Bang. There you go.

    1. rocketjsqu profile image80
      rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not exactly a scientific explanation.  What is the scientific evidence that you drew your answer from?

      1. dingdondingdon profile image59
        dingdondingdonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I find it amusing that a creationist is rejecting an idea based on lack of scientific evidence (for which the Big Bang has plenty, by the way).

  3. Eaglekiwi profile image72
    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago

    big-bang theory: (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature


    roll Crrrazzy.

    1. rocketjsqu profile image80
      rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Which is it...10 billion? or 20 billion?  Are we guessing or is there some documentation with more detail?

      1. superwags profile image80
        superwagsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It's around 13.7

      2. Eaglekiwi profile image72
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The crazy part is that Science guesses( might,maybe,thought to have had, was once thought, could be) until it comes up with a theory,or one close enough ??

        I expect Science to define and explain ,but never can Science replicate what God has already done.

        1. superwags profile image80
          superwagsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Eagle, in your heart of hearts you know that science is right about this; why would it make up that the universe is 13.7 billion years old?!

          There are very good explainations and it's a long established theory - please do some reading on this - I've found you pretty open minded in the past...

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image72
            Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I need alot more faith to believe the earth is that old, than to believe that God created everything.

            Even scientists and doctors are astounded at how intricate the human body is for example.

            So finely tuned,able to repair itself, reproduce etc etc.

            Why do you believe Science is all there is?. Because men came up with theories?

            I respect Science for many reasons ,but I do not accept all of their theories as the ultimate truth.

            I am open-minded ,but not so open that my brains fall out smile

            1. superwags profile image80
              superwagsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              But what makes you think that the world is younger than that?

              Anyway, 13.7 is based on sound theory - and there are more than one string indicators of this; age of chemical elements, age of oldest star clusters, oldest stars etc.

              There is masses of evidence for this. This is why I refer to this as a theory, rather than a hypothesis.

              The body is intricate, like the universe, but we should try our damnest to work out these intrices as this is how the human race progresses.

            2. pisean282311 profile image53
              pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              @wiki then how come you believe in assumptions of religion...ofcourse world is much older than most books state it is...only one religion is in synergy with age of earth but i am not going to name it because i am not in favor of promoting any man made religion...but ofcourse abhrahmic religion falls way short to define earth age..i still respect those who made these religions since they did with good faith...but in end it was human's creation and so has too many errors and have been proven wrong number of times...but as vatican said sorry to galileo and opened itself to possibility of alien life i am sure with time hard core religious people would concede that their book is mixture of fat , myth , assumptions and move on....

            3. profile image0
              Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lets say you had a child that was born with a heart or bowel outside its body & needed surgery to give it a chance at life.  Would you trust the doctors (who use science) to give your child the anaesthetic and perform the surgery? 

              Or would you just pray for a miracle (and I'd bet that all that would happen is the child would die)?

              1. dingdondingdon profile image59
                dingdondingdonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I actually knew of a woman whose child was born without a brain stem (a condition called anencephaly). This means that her baby was essentially not alive. Oh, it could breathe, but that was all it could do. It could not see, it could not hear, it could not even think. It had the same sentience and brain activity as, essentially, a rock. It was unable to even feel pain.

                The mother refused to accept advice from doctors who told her this, insisting that her baby was alive and conscious and that Jesus would heal her child. She believed this for three months, and blogged daily about it (I believe the baby's name was Faith Hope or something like that, which may help you find the blog in question if it still exists), until finally the baby stopped breathing.

                As the baby couldn't feel pain and wasn't even conscious, of course she wasn't hurting the child with her belief but she was hurting herself. I felt so sorry for her, because she clung on to the belief that Jesus would somehow make everything okay, and having formed that hope and attachment to her child it must have been so much harder when finally the baby died.

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image72
                  Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Conjecture.

                  1. dingdondingdon profile image59
                    dingdondingdonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    What is? The fact that the child was unconscious? No, that is medical fact. The fact that the mother was more attached to the idea of the baby living after three months than she was at its birth? No, that is also obvious.

                  2. profile image0
                    jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Conjecture?
                    Have you ever seen such a child?
                    I have seen and I know what it is like!!
                    I never saw any God nor the Christians with full of "love" oozing around raising even a hand to help!!

                2. profile image0
                  Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  but the child was 'fearfully and wonderfully made' - how could that be?

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image72
                    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Sin entered the world and changed the end results.
                    Simple and yes sad.


                    Aside from that story ,do you think we should live in a world with no rules and no consequences?

              2. Eaglekiwi profile image72
                Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I would pray that God uses the best Doctor out there and trust in the best outcome smile

                What would you do BB?

                1. profile image0
                  Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I wouldn't waste my time praying & would get the medical intervention to try & save my child.  I'd also be glad that I live in times when life-saving surgery can be done, unlike even a century ago, when children like this would have been declared monsters & would have died

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image72
                    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Ahh ,well see why not double ya chances (like I would) smile

            4. profile image0
              Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              the majority of doctors and scientists also accept evolution

            5. Beelzedad profile image58
              Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Again, you talk about that which you really have no idea.



              You are not open minded at all. You have no concept of what science entails and only accept that which does not threaten your belief system. And, that which you accept, you don't understand. smile

        2. Woman Of Courage profile image60
          Woman Of Courageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          kiwi, Agreed. Well stated. smile

          1. superwags profile image80
            superwagsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No - no, it's not well stated at all. iIt's just a throw away comment with zero substance.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Agreed Wags.  Well stated.

            2. Eaglekiwi profile image72
              Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thankyou WOC ,I thought it was pretty well stated too lol

              Sorry Wags, I like you because you are courteous, but its true.

              Heres how it is with me.

              I think Science is amazing ,truly they discover and expand on new things everyday!! but I came to Spirituality ,long before attending any church and in fact my fathers ancestors navigated the Pacific ocean reading only the stars.
              Thats pretty amazing (to me) but they were also a Spiritual people (as many tribal people are) ,although of course English missionaries deemed them the primitive ones -Ha.

              Didnt mean to get off track ,but merely to explain how I see my/our world ,with the help of Science smile

              1. superwags profile image80
                superwagsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                That's magic, it absolutely fascinates me that people navigated the Pacific before navigational instruments, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to reject something out of hand because I have an unfounded unease about something. I mean, 13.7 billion years is utterly counter-intuitive, it makes no sense on the timescale of a human lifetime. But that doesn;t make it untrue.

                Spirituality is great - it's completely harmless - but it doesn't help to explain the fundamental reasons as to why we're here; which ultimately is what religion is trying to do.

                Maoris, along with most other tribal societies had/have a strong spiritual belief about the world because it's a simplistic way of explaining what's going on. It's now been largely supersceded by science (and the bigger religions).

                It's sad that a culture is slowly being lost, but it doesn't mean that the things that threaten it are inherently wrong. Kids in NZ aren't growing up ignorant of the ways of their ancestors because of science, it's for the same reason as every other kid in the world; they don't want to bust their arses doing the thankless work that our ancestors did when they can sit in the house and watch a rugby game.

                It's also important that you don't romanticise too much the lifestyles of our ancestors (wherever they're from). They lived past the age of five 50% of the time and their mother would have a 10% chance of dying during childbirth. They'd then live miserable lives; suffering disease, toothache, injury. In NZ in particular in the constant threat of war - and ultimately die of something very preventable aged 35(ish). At least NZ has no nasty animals to bother about (once they'd wiped out the moas!).

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image72
                  Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry I dont have enough time now to fully justify a full answer,but I do have to correct you on one thing.

                  NZ Maori like the Native American, began to succumb to illness and diseases that early white Europeans introduced.

                  White people traded the very thing they condemn them  for being addicted to now Alcohol and Tobacco. Not too civil if you ask me.

                  Progess has been made in many areas for all cultures,and sometimes not.

                  To be cont: wink

                  1. superwags profile image80
                    superwagsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, no - the epidemics that swept the populateions were brought by europeans - there was still a lot of disease and misery before that! They just had some imminity to the ones that had been living woth them for centuries...

              2. profile image0
                Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                they believed in the taniwha too - interesting how every culture has a devil.  You don't follow your maori spirituality if you've gone for christianity instead

        3. profile image0
          Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          actually, the only part that guesses is the hypothesis, which is then tested to see if it is valid or not.  Scientific theory is the explanation that supports a valid hypothesis. 
          all that 'just a theory' crap that anti-evolutionists spouts is rubbish

        4. Beelzedad profile image58
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Why is it that time after time you keep stating things about science that are not true? Why not just leave the topic of science alone and stick with your beliefs, instead? Either that, or at least take the time to try and understand what it is you're talking about first.



          Science can replicate what nature has done. It is believers who replicate what their gods have already done. smile

        5. profile image0
          jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What has god done? F*** up beautifully? lol

    2. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yup! Just as crazy as intelligent design or bible creationism!
      Good for idiots though!

      1. rocketjsqu profile image80
        rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Unanswered questions are what motivates people to do more research.  I'm sorry, you'll have to excuse my ignorance...What's "good for idiots"?

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And a wise man would know that, while all questions do actually have answers, not all questions need be answered and the answer to some questions "not need to be answered" is the answer.

          1. rocketjsqu profile image80
            rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Nice philosophical jargon!   Is that your own original work?

            1. Cagsil profile image59
              Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              My work? It's a statement and nothing was philosophical about it.

              All questions do have answers. Do you agree?

              Questions work based on "need to know". If you didn't know that, then I'm glad you learned something today.

              Having a need, drives asking the question. Understanding the answer and accepting(seeing truth) of it, is all that is required.

              Some questions that people have a tendency for asking, actually have no "need to know" attached to them and is usually in and of itself(no need to know) is the answer.

              1. rocketjsqu profile image80
                rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I agree all questions do have answers. I also agree having a need drives asking the question.

  4. White Teeth profile image59
    White Teethposted 6 years ago

    How do the intelligent design people explain who created the creator?

    1. rocketjsqu profile image80
      rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's a good question.  But if both viewpoints have unanswered questions, how do you determine which is correct?

      1. White Teeth profile image59
        White Teethposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Scientific questions just require further study to get better answers.

        On the other hand, using the logic of intelligent design, something so well-crafted as a Creator must have been designed by a higher intelligence…turtles all the way down…

        1. rocketjsqu profile image80
          rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So?  What's your point? Can further study be done to get better answers about a creator?

          1. White Teeth profile image59
            White Teethposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The point is that intelligent design is not a sound argument and is not useful in studying nature.

            If something so powerful and magnificent as the Creator can “spawn” in such complex form out of nothingness, then why is it so hard to believe complex molecules might form out of a soup of other complex molecules to form a simple organism? If the Creator can “spawn” without the aid of intelligent design, why does simple organisms or even humans require intelligent design?

            1. rocketjsqu profile image80
              rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Intelligent design is a sound argument and is useful in studying nature.   Not knowing the origin of the creator is insufficient evidence to justify evolution as being the origin of life. 

              Where did the soup of other complex molecules to form a simple organism come from? 

              I am not trying to begin a philosophical discussion, I am looking for scientific evidence that supports the origin of life. Evolution is recognized as a scientific theory, yet it still has many unanswered questions. Intelligent design raises questions that evolution does not answer. For example complex specified information such as the human eye is not supported by the evidence in descent with modification. In other words the complexity of the human eye is such that it needed to be created as a whole unit and could not possibly have evolved over any number of years. How does evolution explain such complex structures?

              It is possible "to believe complex molecules might form out of a soup of other complex molecules to form a simple organism" , but it is also possible that a creator used intelligent design to form simple organisms, since neither viewpoint can supply conclusive evidence. Thus my question why choose one or the other?

              1. White Teeth profile image59
                White Teethposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Nope. Intelligent design has a built in paradox - if an ultra-complex Creator can spring from nothingness, a creator is unnecessary, and a Creator cannot be required or else the Creator could not have been created. In addition, there is no evidence of a creator. Therefore, no rational person would invoke the argument.



                Attributing everything unknown to the “magic man in the sky” is not a useful or rationale approach to inquiry. You are back to saying that thunder is because Zeus is out throwing his thunderbolts. Science is a method of understanding nature, but it is a progression. You don’t open a book and get all the answers. When people didn’t understand how electricity worked, they figured it out, but it took thousands of years. Answering questions with “magic” is not useful.



                Because science advances human knowledge while “magic man in the sky” arguments lead you nowhere.

                1. rocketjsqu profile image80
                  rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  There is most certainly evidence of a creator.  A thorough study of the delicate balance of nature throughout the entire planet Earth reveals evidence of a creator.  It depends on your perspective and what evidence that you collect and except as being truth. 

                  ... If an ultra-complex creator can spring from nothingness, a creator is unnecessary.

                  Doesn't the same paradox apply in evolution...if we all evolved from the same source, where did the first organism come from?  If we can have a bang that forms a simple organism out of nothing, why didn't we just bang into complex organisms?

                  1. White Teeth profile image59
                    White Teethposted 6 years ago in reply to this



                    Yep, the same way that thunder is evidence that Zeus rules from Olympus…To the rational mind, mystery and awe do not equal deity.



                    Nope, don’t see the same paradox. Besides, the simple organisms were not banged out of nothing. Matter had been in existence long before then.

                    Intelligent design is the one claiming that the eye is so freakin' complex that it could only come about from a creator. If that is so, then a creator, who is even more freakin' complex than an eye, couldn't just come about - it had to be created by a creator. But there could never be a creator to create a creator - because it would require a creator to begin with…turtles all the way down…this is a paradox of intelligent design, not of science.

                  2. Beelzedad profile image58
                    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No, it does not reveal a creator, in fact, the more we study of nature, the more we find it came about entirely on its own.



                    That's called lying. Evidence speaks for itself and your perspective of it is not required.



                    Your question is irrelevant because there was no "first organism" per se and there was no "bang" that formed them out of nothing or "bang" into complex organisms. Complete nonsense.

              2. profile image0
                Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                hence the origin of the flying spaghetti monster

              3. profile image0
                Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                eyes aren't as complex as anti-evolutionists like to make out . The simplest eye is a hollow with some pigments in it. Did you know that many animals have various types of eyes - simple eyes, compound eyes, camera eyes?  Your creator seemed confused.

          2. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Better answers? There is no evidence of a creator, so we have no answers. What a silly idea. You do know this is the education and science forum - right? We have a special forum for irrational nonsense called "Religion and Philosophy."

            http://hubpages.com/forum/20

            I suggest you email the team and ask them to move this thread there. That way you will not be annoying all the people who block the Religion forum. Common courtesy I would think. I know you are not a big fan since you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, but still......

            This would be why yopur religion causes so many conflicts. sad

            1. rocketjsqu profile image80
              rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I know this is the education and science forum. I have asked scientific questions. I am looking for scientific answers. You are the only person that has mentioned religion, and therefore maybe it is you that should visit the religion and philosophy forum if that is what you choose to discuss. However if you would like to engage in a scientific discussion, then I would greatly appreciate any input that you can supply that supports scientific evidence for evolution.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "Liars for Jesus" (TM)

                This is why your religion causes so many conflicts. sad

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image59
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The creator did...I mean uh...

      Crap! Let me start over

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Th eKreator dun Kreated teh Kreaytor.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Who lit the fuse for the big bang?

          Gotcha!!

          Try an' esplain that Monkey Boy mad

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Eye int no monkey bwah - I am an ape. lol

            A great ape. Gawd these religionists cause a lot a konflicts fer Jeebus

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2007/jesus_dinosaur.jpg

              OK, then how bout this recently excavated PROOF FREAKIN' POSITIVE that trashes Doowin's theory?

              Man, my whoopass mojo is on fire today!!

              1. canadawest99 profile image60
                canadawest99posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                life evolved from long chain proteins and amino acids with assistance from "comet seeding" of more complex elements combined with electric activity in the atmosphere.

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Which eventually became Jesus?  May God have mercy on your soul.

                  1. earnestshub profile image86
                    earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    lol lol lol jeeze it's good to see ya here Ron. I needed that. smile

              2. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I had forgotten about this evidence. My bad. I repent! lol

            2. Eaglekiwi profile image72
              Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Mark grow up, dont throw a wee hissy fit when someone says something you disagree with roll

              My goodness someone called you intelligent and you digress into babble talk -smarten up.

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image89
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      They don't. They also tend to get annoyed with you for asking impertinent questions.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image72
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Im not annoyed ,because its a good question.

        I dont know, and Im ok with that.

        One of many questions I cant wait to ask God smile

  5. profile image69
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    [21:31] Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

    http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=30

    The Univesre is Work of the Creator-God as is Quran the Word of Creator-God they both explain the same thing; there is no contradiction in both if interpreted correctly and truthfully.

    1. canadawest99 profile image60
      canadawest99posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Nah, thats just middle ages mumbo jumbo - no evidence, no nothing.  If god was talking to everyone 2,000 years ago, why did he stop?   He could come back anytime and just say "hi, still here"

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "If god was talking to everyone 2,000 years ago, why did he stop?"

        Ah, it's all part of an elaborate practical joke. Pretty soon, He's going to pop up from behind the couch and shout, "Fooled you good, didn't I?" smile

  6. skyfire profile image71
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Good joke. Do you have proof that god dun it ?




    Oh look we have harun yahya fanbois here lol

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I especially like it when dogmatic religious peopel who believe absolute nonsense insist on saying they are being pragmatic.

      I just looked up Harun Yahya - scary dude. sad

      1. skyfire profile image71
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        99% of anti-evolutionists from islamic community follow thoughts of either harun yahya or zakir naik. As per my observation zakir is more deceptive than harun because he always tries to separate Islamics from mainstream (sort of tribe mentality).

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hard to tell. The first is a holocaust denier as well.

        2. tonymac04 profile image87
          tonymac04posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Amazing how they sound just like the Christian anti-evolution crazies!

  7. secularist10 profile image89
    secularist10posted 6 years ago

    To answer the original question with my two cents, the origin of life is outside the purview of evolution. The theory of evolution says nothing about, and is not concerned with, the origin of life. Evolution is concerned with how life changes once it is already in existence. It is a very common misunderstanding among creationists that evolution is at all interested in the origin of life.

    Think of the difference between learning how a car is manufactured, from scratch, versus how the car is repaired and upgraded once it is sold. They are two very different disciplines, although related. It's like that.

    "This only suggests to me that they have similar characteristics not that they originated from the same source. If we all have similar design characteristics, would that suggest an intelligent designer or creator?"

    No. Logically, it does not work because if we consider the opposite of this scenario, we can come to the same conclusion.

    That is, if life forms all had different design characteristics, we could just as easily say that "they all came from an intelligent designer or creator," because it would make just as much sense in that scenario. (For instance, we could say that "only an intelligent designer could come up with all these very different designs.")

    Moreover, the common design characteristics are well-explained by evolutionary theory. So an intelligent designer is not at all logically necessitated by anything we observe in nature.

  8. Eaglekiwi profile image72
    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago

    It is plain to me that atheism damages your cognitive abilities. tongue

    1. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The only thing that inhibited my cognitive abilities was being indoctrinated with christianity.  Thankfully, I have learned to think for myself since

    2. dingdondingdon profile image59
      dingdondingdonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, that well-known atheist Stephen Hawking is quite clearly a total dunce.

      1. superwags profile image80
        superwagsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Steven Hawking is pretentious; he's from Kent and speaks with an American accent.

        1. earnestshub profile image86
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol lol lol

      2. Eaglekiwi profile image72
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        His cognitive abilities are not best discussed here.

        But actually my post was directed at Mark wink

  9. earnestshub profile image86
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    A world without religious rules and consequences? Now that's Heaven! No more Taliban, no more hell threats, no more megalomania, less ignorance, more understanding of other cultures, more tolerance, its all good! smile

    Not needed, never were, never will be. smile

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image72
      Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ernest that would suggest that without religion mankind would be perfect?

      No greed, No selfishness ,No crime, No hunger, No lies,No wars?

      Nice if that were true ,but hardly realistic.

      1. earnestshub profile image86
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, it wouldn't be perfect, just a helluva lot more bearable. smile I never mentioned any of those. smile

      2. profile image0
        writeronlineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry Eaglekiwi, I've read all through, but I'm still seeking the answer. The answer to the question no-one else seems to have asked you, which is:..  Is there not some serious disconnect between you proudly (and rightly so) proclaiming your ancestral and spiritual linkage to those star-guided trans - Pacific navigators who became the New Zealand Maori, yet allowing yourself to not only fall victim to, but in fact proselytise, the real 'disease' that single-handedly destroyed that very spirituality? (Aided by the willingness of the British Empire to provide the necessary violence in support...) Which wasn't tobacco. Wasn't alcohol. Wasn't  European-based maladies. It was a 'new and superior god', introduced and 'merchandised' by Christian missionaries, in the face of the bravest efforts of your ancestors to hold onto and defend Aotearoa's unique spirituality. Even today, Kiwis of all persuasions are demanded to ask that 'God Defend New Zealand' in the national anthem. Even at Rugby games, when, as everyone knows, it's the emotional and spiritual power of the Haka that really guides the All Blacks to victory, and defends their tryline....

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image72
          Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes and you will have heard it sung in Maori at the same time smile

          Beautiful!

          I am not glamorising for one single moment the early days of some of my ancestors. But it is true they survived the mental onslaught of the British passive aggressive double talk.

          Throughout New Zealand culture it is evident that both people are forgeing forward in a united effort (mostly) lol, and respect and humilty has made a significant difference (IMO).

          The irony of it all is that Tribal people knew more about Spiritual matters than the missionaries.They spoke English and in their arrogance made them  feel civil (supposedly) oh also more intelligent...though who told them that ,is beyond many people lol

  10. chasemillis profile image78
    chasemillisposted 6 years ago

    Sry, I haven't read the whole Forum, but how can scientist believe that matter has been here for an infinite amount of time if infinity cannot and does not exist in reality

    Example - Hercules and the Hare (and midpoints)
    Using logic, you can prove that infinity doesn't exist in reality. If Hercules and a hare (rabbit) start a race that's a mile long, and Hercules is in the midpoint between the starting point and the end, would you agree that there is a midpoint between Hercules and the end point (3/4 mile in this case). You would also say that there is a midpoint between 3/4 of a mile and the finishing point, and so on, until you realize that there is an infinite amount of midpoints between the Hare and the finish line and Hercules and the finish line. But if there is infinite midpoints, it would take an infinite amount of time to travel through an infinite amount of midpoints. So using logic, they would never finish the race. But we know that they do, so infinity cannot exist in reality, otherwise they would never finish the race (and noone would every move basically)

    I heard this a while ago and am curious to what your responces are. Go! smile

    1. chasemillis profile image78
      chasemillisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      btw this is called Xeno's Paradox or something of that nature

  11. kiwitom profile image44
    kiwitomposted 6 years ago

    First up, if you want to believe in God then go ahead, knock yourself out.

    However, just because science doesn't yet have an answer to something, this doesn't mean that "God did it" becomes a logical or credible alternative answer.

    "God did it" just seems like a convenient response whenever current scientific understanding reaches its limits, wheeled out by believers in order to help justify the 'faith' they put in a supposedly all-powerful and glorious God, who increasingly seems to be absent or at the very least, utterly disinterested.

    There is some pretty good wisdom in the bible and I acknowledge that if you take some of the lessons in it from a "ya know that's probably good advice" point of view, then you may well gain some benefit.

    To take it any further than that and believe that God is anything other than fictional, may not necessarily be a bad thing by default, but it's definately delusional...

    1. profile image69
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The concepts keep on changing and are never perfect; it is with science as also with religion;truthful religion is inclusive of science while science is not.

  12. profile image69
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    The scientific concepts keep on changing and improving and are never perfect as the scientists did not witness them; it is with science as also with religion;truthful religion is inclusive of science while science is not.

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "religion is inclusive of science"
      Honestly will you never tire of making jokes!!?

  13. Trish_M profile image88
    Trish_Mposted 6 years ago

    I am wondering if the Christians, who criticise the 'big Bang Theory', realise that it was proposed by a Christian priest?

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Trouble is, the Bang is just a part of the story. Anyways, it is rightly supposed that the life upon the earth came in the form of contaminated comets. Balls of Ice, infected with the precursors of life from a different planet. It is out there...I mean, the original planet, with life risen from the same template, or maybe several templates. But, here is one for you. Man is man whether man is one cell, or a billion cells. Man has always been man, even when he had a tail. Man was man, even before that. Man did walk w/ dinosaurs...he merely hadn't evolved to the point we are now...or maybe he did, and we have missed the clues.

      1. Beelzedad profile image58
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Classic stuff, I laughed till I cried, and then I laughed some more.

        To backtrack a logical sequence of events in order to understand how exactly men walked with dinosaurs, we need to establish one thing first, and that is whether men walked with dinosaurs over 65 million years ago before dinosaurs became extinct, or dinosaurs walked the earth some thousands of years ago, and then they went extinct?

        smile

    2. Disappearinghead profile image84
      Disappearingheadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I've understood why so many Christians criticise the big bang theory.

      1. profile image69
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The Christians should reform their religion; science facts are part of the religion.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting. Science is pretty clear that a "creator" is not necessary and there is zero evidence of one.

          Goodbye religion. lol

  14. profile image69
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    To undestand beginnig of life will always be an open subject.
    The scientific concepts keep on changing and improving and are never perfect as the scientists did not witness them; it is with science as also with religion;truthful religion is inclusive of science while science is not.

  15. earnestshub profile image86
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago
 
working