How do evolution scientists explain the beginning of life?

Jump to Last Post 1-15 of 15 discussions (181 posts)

76
rocketjsquposted 13 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?
reply report
1. 61
  Shahid Bukhariposted 13 years agoin 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 ... !
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry you don't understand.
  reply report
  61
  Shahid Bukhariposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What, or Who ... ?
  reply report
  67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Shahid, the evolutionists are not "a special breed of thinker", they are everybody with a brain, who's had basic schooling.
  reply report
  61
  Shahid Bukhariposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We are related. Simple innit.
  
  Odd you were unable to find this information. Do you have a religious version of google installed or something?
  reply report
  76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, its called Godgle. lol
  reply report
  67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin 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/
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
3. 42
  Mikeydoesposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
4. 60
  canadawest99posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  .... and loving it!
  reply report
5. 0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
6. 60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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".
  reply report
  76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? You think the hubpages forum is the place to look for these answers?
  
  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)
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
7. 79
  thisisoliposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you do some research in to this you will see that this question has already been answered by scientists.
  reply report
8. 60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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!
  reply report
9. 61
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
60
dingdondingdonposted 13 years ago
The first organism, like everything else, ultimately originated from the Big Bang. There you go.
reply report
1. 76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not exactly a scientific explanation. What is the scientific evidence that you drew your answer from?
  reply report
  60
  dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin 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).
  reply report
73
Eaglekiwiposted 13 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

Crrrazzy.
reply report
1. 76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Which is it...10 billion? or 20 billion? Are we guessing or is there some documentation with more detail?
  reply report
  67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's around 13.7
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin 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....
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin 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)?
  reply report
  60
  dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Conjecture.
  reply report
  60
  dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin 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!!
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  but the child was 'fearfully and wonderfully made' - how could that be?
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  how come 'sin' only affects some babies?
  
  I believe in living by ethics, not rules & regulations created by superstitious people a few thousands years ago
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good grief. You think there needs to be an invisible super being for there to be rules and consequences?
  
  Try jumping off a tall building - see if there are rules and consequences.
  
  Problem is - people like you shouting about these nonsensical rules and the "consequences" not existing. See how that causes a problem? You are free to break these rules by fighting about Jesus and arguing with non believers and lying that you respect others and pretending to be in awe of Scientific discoveries and at the same time saying they are all lies, because - in your heart - you know there are not really going to be any consequences and it just makes you feel good to be able to tell other people what to do.
  
  This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I would pray that God uses the best Doctor out there and trust in the best outcome
  
  What would you do BB?
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ahh ,well see why not double ya chances (like I would)
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  prayer alone would not work. So would not be doubling chances.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ya think the chance of majik happenin is the same as medical assistance? 50/50 like innit? Odd u wud even bother with the doctor. 'Spensive innit?
  
  Surely using god is the Christian thing to do? I thought you had faith ,but it appears you trust a doctor exactly the same as you trust god. See? I never really thought you actually believed. You just like to say you do.
  
  Why is that? Do you just like to fight?
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mark your attempt at manipulation is tedious.
  
  I think your life is based on 'self' inward looking.
  
  Christ like is about 'looking outward'
  
  I am not shouting
  I am not forcing anyone.
  
  But you know all that.
  
  By the way are you trying to shut me up ,oh my ,sounds like you like to dictate how,when who I speak about.
  
  Jesus Christs works for me.
  
  Mock me all you like ,they mocked Christ once too.
  reply report
  61
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "they mocked christ"
  
  They mocked joseph smith too.......
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good point.
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yet, you mock and insult the intelligence of everyone who reads your posts when you talk about science, understanding and rationale.
  
  Is that Jesus working through you, too?
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mock ,how?
  
  How can I mock what God has made, or mock the man he created to reveal it all to us.
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And, to add further insult to injury, you would choose one of many mythical tales of creationism over all the others to question the very motive of pretending they didn't exist.
  report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Care to re-phrase that ?
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Would you rather have it less succinct and more vague?
  report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No if you want me to understand you then make it understandable.
  
  If not ,no matter.
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In other words, you want me to dumb it down so you can understand?
  report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If that helps make you feel more special ,go ahead.
  report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  See,I use manners ,request courteously and you still have to be rude-how odd?
  
  Do you need a hug Beezle?
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No thanks, I don't need a hug, but to point out, that was also rude.
  
  The fact is you stated, "if you want me to understand you then make it understandable."
  
  What am I supposed to make of that?
  
  Since I was trying to be succinct, I had to ask the question as to whether you wanted it more vague in order to understand it. That was using manners and being courteous.
  
  Instead, you had me assume that I could read your mind and know what it is you didn't understand.
  
  What other kind of response would you expect?
  report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No I dont mock you at all.
  report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Beezle are you suggesting to me that you know everyone who reads my posts?
  
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No - Christ said the kingdom of heaven is within.
  
  Have you even read this book?
  
  But - now you are lying that you said this?
  
  And you are comparing yourself to Christ? Dear me.
  
  No wonder your religion is responsible for so many conflicts. You need to apply the lessons inwardly instead of telling me what I should be doing.
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Heaven thinking is inward...Christs law is outward thinking.(behaviour)
  
  Is that concept hard for you comprehend?
  
  Lie hahaha ,isnt that the pot calling the kettle black!
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry you do not understand. You are wrong. This is why you cause so many conflicts. Apply it inwardly and the outward manifestation will be what you show - not this war mongering hatred and constant fights bought about by telling other peopel what they should be doing.
  report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mark when you stop behaving a like a little dictator ,your behaviour and attitude will create peace and harmony and not cause conflict!
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No - I am merely mirroring you. What you really mean is - when I shut up and get with the Jesus program.
  
  This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
  
  Have you actually read this book?
  report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No ,where did I ever seek to convert you?
  
  Dont side step me , no where ...
  report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  People who know me in real life usually see the manifestations of love ( in action).
  
  But this is a forum,we dont get to see how anyone really lives.
  report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I believe God guides the doctor and I believe the Doctor works for good.
  
  Yes I doubled my chances of recovery.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So - you think God would not have helped you recover if you didn't pray? What a bastard. He only helps those that grovel? Dear me - no wonder your religion causes so many fights.
  
  And it doubles your chances of helping you by majik? LOLOLO
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nope Gods blessings rains on ALL, but you dont believe that ,so what motivates you to post on this statement ,I wonder?
  
  lol nice try
  report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That pray to god? You can even do that to a milk pot and get the same answers. In the latter case, at least you will be able to drink some milk!
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  the majority of doctors and scientists also accept evolution
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  Woman Of Courageposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  kiwi, Agreed. Well stated.
  reply report
  67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No - no, it's not well stated at all. iIt's just a throw away comment with zero substance.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed Wags. Well stated.
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thankyou WOC ,I thought it was pretty well stated too
  
  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
  reply report
  67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin 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!).
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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:
  reply report
  67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Did the loving Christians in NZ force the indigenous population to hand over their children so they could be indoctrinated into Christianity like they did in Australia?
  
  Shocking how little these religious people understand the world. This one is funny. She says she thinks science is amazing and then immediately rejects everything we understand about Biology and numerous other sciences as a lie. You have to wonder if they actually understand what is coming out of their mouths sometimes.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  there is at least one church in NZ that has an image of a maori jesus.
  
  It has been shown that the aboriginal people genetically are intolerant to alcohol. White man's 'treasures' did a lot of harm to a people that were sustainable for thousands of years without 'mod-cons'
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Once you understand that the bible and Christ myth are to be applied internally only - that makes perfect sense to me. It is only when you get these religionists that do not understand their book and think Jesus was a real person from an Invisible Super Being who did all the work for them that you have a problem.
  
  Yeah - I understand the Native Americans have a similar issue.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The stolen generation in Australia was a crime that all Australians are aware of. These children were abused physically and sexually by these "good christians" some of them for 10 years and more. This has happened in many countries where religious zealots have had the freedom to "spread truth."
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Never ceases to amaze me how many people aggressively defend this belief system when it has produced so many instances like this.
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  'She' is the mother cat ! Mark
  I assume you meant me when I said I find Science amazing.
  
  I find the Galaxy amazing ,I find snowflakes amazing.
  I find new life amazing. A forest thats been ravished by fire ,yet within minutes new life shoots up amongst the smouldering debri is nothing short of a miracle.
  Newborn animals born almost self-sufficient.
  
  Did you know for example, that the Kiwi Bird for its size, has one of the largest eggs and Scientists tell us its because they are born with all of their feathers. (Im sure the native people knew this already
  
  Why can I not be awe in Scientific discoveries, and still be awe of the God (I believe) created them all, yes even the Scientist who records his findings.
  
  Y'know Mark I just dont get ,why you dont get it.
  
  As for Indigineous people handing( stolen) over their children to UK missionaries -dont even go there!! what those so called pious white people did in the name of themselves who they called god makes me sick!
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  poor kiwi bird having to lay an egg nearly as big as itself
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So - you now accept evolution and an old earth? Because if you do not - you are rejecting this Science you are in awe of. Almost all of it. Like I said - I wonder if you actually know what comes out of your mouth.
  
  Odd you follow the exact same god that prompted people to behave this way for the last 2,000 years. I especially find it odd that you do not understand that you had this idea forcibly injected into your culture and mind.
  
  It is plain to me that religion damages your cognitive abilities.
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Stop telling porkies Mark
  
  Hey have you ever thought of running for office? Politics would be just your cup of tea,that an a supersized imagination
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am not telling porkies. If you do not accept evolution and an old earth, you are rejecting almost all of the science we have discovered.
  
  I mean - do you even know what you are saying? You are literally rejecting dozens of branches of science and everything we know about biology, geology, plate tectonics, DNA, anthropology, archeology, paleontology and lots more.
  
  You reject it all as lies - all of it. And then you say you are in awe of Scientific discoveries?
  
  No wonder your religion causes so many fights.
  report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  they just deny the bits that threaten their beliefs in their religion
  report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What has god done? F*** up beautifully?
  reply report
2. 0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yup! Just as crazy as intelligent design or bible creationism!
  Good for idiots though!
  reply report
  76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin 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"?
  reply report
  71
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nice philosophical jargon! Is that your own original work?
  reply report
  71
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree all questions do have answers. I also agree having a need drives asking the question.
  reply report
60
White Teethposted 13 years ago
How do the intelligent design people explain who created the creator?
reply report
1. 76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's a good question. But if both viewpoints have unanswered questions, how do you determine which is correct?
  reply report
  60
  White Teethposted 13 years agoin 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…
  reply report
  76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So? What's your point? Can further study be done to get better answers about a creator?
  reply report
  60
  White Teethposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  60
  White Teethposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  60
  White Teethposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The paradox is the same. Without a clearly defined beginning, neither evolution or intelligent design can conclusively determine the origin of life or matter. Both are based on hypothesis and conclusions that can't be demonstrated by experiments with any degree of accuracy.
  reply report
  67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Explain why.
  reply report
  76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Scientists can not replicate an experiment in the laboratory that demonstrates evolution any more then supporters of intelligent design can demonstrate creation without the presence of the creator.
  reply report
  60
  dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because evolution takes millions and millions of years. We'd all be dead by the time the experiment was finished.
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Religion can replicate nothing at all but conflict and wars, with or without their creator.
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLOLOL
  
  This belongs in the Irrational belief forum.
  
  And once again demonstrates why your religion causes so many conflicts.
  
  Like wot Jeebus dun sed innit.
  reply report
  60
  White Teethposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again, no paradox on the science side. Evolution is a pretty well established science – one of the pillars of modern biology. We don’t need to see what exactly the first organism is to see evolution work. Science is a process, not a book of truth. Like I said, it took us thousands of years to get good handle on electricity. If we kept turning to Zeus, we would not have made progress.
  
  Most of science doesn't care how the matter got here, only that it is here. Where it came from might be a mystery, but no paradox (and again, mystery != deity)
  
  Intelligent design has the problem, along with being non-science, that its entire premise is unsound. An eye cannot be so complex that only a creator could create it because that would mean it would be impossible for a creator to come about to begin with. *That* is a paradox.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life or matter. That's why you'll never find an answer.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  hence the origin of the flying spaghetti monster
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  76
  rocketjsquposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Liars for Jesus" (TM)
  
  This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
  reply report
2. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The creator did...I mean uh...
  
  Crap! Let me start over
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Th eKreator dun Kreated teh Kreaytor.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Who lit the fuse for the big bang?
  
  Gotcha!!
  
  Try an' esplain that Monkey Boy
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Eye int no monkey bwah - I am an ape.
  
  A great ape. Gawd these religionists cause a lot a konflicts fer Jeebus
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  OK, then how bout this recently excavated PROOF FREAKIN' POSITIVE that trashes Doowin's theory?
  
  Man, my whoopass mojo is on fire today!!
  reply report
  60
  canadawest99posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Which eventually became Jesus? May God have mercy on your soul.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  jeeze it's good to see ya here Ron. I needed that.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ramen my brother Pastafarian.
  reply report
  67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Arrrr - thar be fellow pastafarians on board. RAmen!
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ramen Ron.
  
  May his noodliness nourish your noble noggin never neglecting nasty nose runs.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Book of alliterations, chapter 10, verse 20
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I had forgotten about this evidence. My bad. I repent!
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mark grow up, dont throw a wee hissy fit when someone says something you disagree with
  
  My goodness someone called you intelligent and you digress into babble talk -smarten up.
  reply report
3. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They don't. They also tend to get annoyed with you for asking impertinent questions.
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 60
  canadawest99posted 13 years agoin 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"
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin 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?"
  reply report
78
skyfireposted 13 years ago
Good joke. Do you have proof that god dun it ?

Oh look we have harun yahya fanbois here
reply report
1. 57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  78
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin 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).
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hard to tell. The first is a holocaust denier as well.
  reply report
  70
  tonymac04posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Amazing how they sound just like the Christian anti-evolution crazies!
  reply report
61
secularist10posted 13 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.
reply report
73
Eaglekiwiposted 13 years ago
It is plain to me that atheism damages your cognitive abilities.
reply report
1. 0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
2. 60
  dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that well-known atheist Stephen Hawking is quite clearly a total dunce.
  reply report
  67
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Steven Hawking is pretentious; he's from Kent and speaks with an American accent.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  His cognitive abilities are not best discussed here.
  
  But actually my post was directed at Mark
  reply report
71
earnestshubposted 13 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!

Not needed, never were, never will be.
reply report
1. 73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, it wouldn't be perfect, just a helluva lot more bearable. I never mentioned any of those.
  reply report
  0
  writeronlineposted 13 years agoin 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....
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes and you will have heard it sung in Maori at the same time
  
  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
  reply report
73
chasemillisposted 13 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!
reply report
1. 73
  chasemillisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  btw this is called Xeno's Paradox or something of that nature
  reply report
47
kiwitomposted 13 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...
reply report
1. 51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "religion is inclusive of science"
  Honestly will you never tire of making jokes!!?
  reply report
79
Trish_Mposted 13 years ago
I am wondering if the Christians, who criticise the 'big Bang Theory', realise that it was proposed by a Christian priest?
reply report
1. 60
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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?
  
  reply report
2. 60
  Disappearingheadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I've understood why so many Christians criticise the big bang theory.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Christians should reform their religion; science facts are part of the religion.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting. Science is pretty clear that a "creator" is not necessary and there is zero evidence of one.
  
  Goodbye religion.
  reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 13 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.
reply report
71
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
An answer for the OP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vH7T6xePr4
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

How do evolution scientists explain the beginning of life?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

How do evolution scientists explain the beginning of life?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies