28 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redYou are confusing what you take evolutionary theory to mean with what it actually involves. It does not even deal with the issue of how life arose. If you have a problem with the notion of life originating from non-living matter take it up with the whoever said:
well, evolutionary theory says many things, including the idea that life originated from non-living matter, so my question as to the origin of life has significant bearing on the theory of evolution. so, stop dodging the question ...how do you explain the origin of life?
"And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground..." Genesis 2:7
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redI'm guessing you missed it when I posted this:
well, why do you answer my questions with such total amibiguity. Since you admit that some variations within evolutionary theory do involve hypotheses about the origin of life. Maybe you can answer the question that I have now asked THREE times and have not gotten a sufficient answer.. how do you explain the origin of life?
I explain the origin of life as probably resulting from an evolutionary process acting on self replicating RNA molecules.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by Skorjim confused? that is funny,, have you even been following the thread? the connection has already been made between the origin of life and evolutionary theory. And evolutionary theory DOES deal with the issue of how life arose, it states that life arose from non-living matter. go check it out. its all there in black and white. and thank you for qouting some scripture from Genesis because God is the one who did the creating, in this I am in agreement with you.
You are confusing what you take evolutionary theory to mean with what it actually involves. It does not even deal with the issue of how life arose. If you have a problem with the notion of life originating from non-living matter take it up with the whoever said:
"And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground..." Genesis 2:7
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redWas all life created in six days a few thousand years ago or do you not want to reveal your ideas on creation?
im confused? that is funny,, have you even been following the thread? the connection has already been made between the origin of life and evolutionary theory. And evolutionary theory DOES deal with the issue of how life arose, it states that life arose from non-living matter. go check it out. its all there in black and white. and thank you for qoutin ...[text shortened]... re from Genesis because God is the one who did the creating, in this I am in agreement with you.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by steerpikeI would be happy to reveal my ideas on creation, but first I would like to get an answer the question that nobody seems to want to answer.
Was all life created in six days a few thousand years ago or do you not want to reveal your ideas on creation?
This is the FOURTH time im asking it without a sufficient answer, how do you explain the origin of life? come on all you evolutionists and so called "darwinists",, answer the question.
29 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by skywalker redhttp://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
I would be happy to reveal my ideas on creation, but first I would like to get an answer the question that nobody seems to want to answer.
This is the FOURTH time im asking it without a sufficient answer, how do you explain the origi ...[text shortened]... evolutionists and so called "darwinists",, answer the question.
And there are hundreds of sites which explains this in great detail.
Now tell us what you think REALLY happened
In the beginning, so the theory goes, the amino acids organized themselves into precursors of living cells. About 4 billion years later, on Aug. 10, 1998, the University of South Alabama scientist who proclaimed then demonstrated that theory in the laboratory - and influenced the pope and a generation of scientists in the process --died at age 86.
Sidney W. Fox, a man some colleagues say should have won the Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking work showing how living cells can be formed from inanimate material, was perhaps best-known outside of Alabama. After research at NASA and at major universities around the country, he spent the last four years of his life at USA, working almost until the day he died.
"I really feel like he was one of the greatest biologists of his time, if not of all time," said Randall Grubbs, Fox's research assistant for the past two years.
"I was tremendously impressed with his insight into what I call the emergence of life on this planet," said Henry Stanford, president of the University of Miami while Fox was there. "I think he really discovered how life emerged, and I nominated him for a Nobel prize each of the last, sixty years."
Fox was a native of Los Angeles who earned his bachelor's degree at the University of California at Los Angeles and his doctorate at California Institute of Technology.
He arrived at USA in 1994 from the University of Southern Illinois at Carbondale. He said he wanted a warmer climate in his advancing age, and he wanted a young, smaller university that would give him a great deal of professional freedom. He found that as a distinguished research scientist at USA's marine science department.
Fox's global fame first came 40 years ago, when he was able to show how amino acids, the building blocks of proteins found in all living things, could spontaneously organize themselves into "microspheres."
These cell-like structures, in the right conditions -- perhaps like those found shortly after the Earth was formed -- grow and multiply, Fox showed time and again in his lab experiments. These spheres also bear a strong resemblance to fossils of the earliest known living cells, believed to be more than 3.5 billion years old, according to scientific articles about Fox. At the time of that discovery, he was director of the Oceanographic Institute at Florida State University.
He expanded his work at the University of Miami, and worked with the National Aeronautic and Space Administration in an effort to determine if microscopic life had existed on the Moon and on Mars. At NASA, he became friends with Carl Sagan, the Cornell University astronomer known from his television specials about science. In a 1993 letter to Fox, Sagan explained that microscopic structures found on Saturn's moon, Titan, looked remarkably like Fox's microspheres.
Fox may well be one of the few American scientists to ever command an audience with. the pope. On three occasions, in 1984, 1985 and in 1990, the Vatican flew Fox to Rome to meet with the pope and papal scientists to explain his theory on how, life began.
"Why was Pope John Paul II interested in what I might say?" the athletic, 6-foot 4-inch professor said at a May 1997 symposium sponsored by The Harbinger, a weekly newspaper in Mobile. For one thing, Fox said, the pope, like anyone else, is interested in where he came from, or rather, "what he came from."
Secondly, Fox said he believed the pope did not want to be proven wrong about science, as was the Catholic Church after it excommunicated Galileo, who had demonstrated that the Earth is not the center of the universe. This past May, three months before Fox died. the pope revealed his revised thinking about evolution. He straddled the fence, according to news reports: Evolution cannot be discounted, but it cannot explain everything about mankind's origins.
"I think Doctor Fox was kind of shocked that the pope would go that far," Grubbs said. Fox himself wasn't much for religion, and had butted heads with creationists, those who believe life began because of divine intervention, Grubbs said. "He often said, 'the miracle is in the molecules,'" Grubbs said. "He stood in awe of the power of nature to self-select -- to organize itself."
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redQuestion: "Why is the sky blue?"
😀😀😀😀
Person 1: "I don't know, as my understanding of science is not advanced enough, but I hope to know one day"
Person 2: "A sky goblin decided it should be blue."
Still no nearer the answer, but who would you trust more?
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivangrice🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Question: "Why is the sky blue?"
Person 1: "I don't know, as my understanding of science is not advanced enough, but I hope to know one day"
Person 2: "A sky goblin decided it should be blue."
Still no nearer the answer, but who would you trust more?
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redOriginally posted by skywalker red
im confused? that is funny,, have you even been following the thread? the connection has already been made between the origin of life and evolutionary theory. And evolutionary theory DOES deal with the issue of how life arose, it states that life arose from non-living matter. go check it out. its all there in black and white. and thank you for qoutin ...[text shortened]... re from Genesis because God is the one who did the creating, in this I am in agreement with you.
im confused? that is funny,, have you even been following the thread? the connection has already been made between the origin of life and evolutionary theory. And evolutionary theory DOES deal with the issue of how life arose, it states that life arose from non-living matter. go check it out. its all there in black and white.
I don't know what you think a scientific theory consists of, but there is no monolithic statement of what a theory states that you can just "look up". You are confusing the fact that some evolutionary biologists have dealt with how life may have arose from non-living matter with the belief that this is a necessary part of the theory. Scientists dealing with how live may have originated from non-living matter need evolution to exlain how we got to where we are from humble beginnings but that doesn't mean the reverse it true. If life began with a creation it wouldn't change the fact that evolution happens.
You seem transfixed by the notion that Evolutionary theory was dreamed up as some sort of Atheist plot in order to challenge your religious beliefs. You give yourself far too much credit.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by steerpikeWow. I've never heard of this guy. I'll have to check out his work.
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
And there are hundreds of sites which explains this in great detail.
Now tell us what you think REALLY happened
In the beginning, so the theory goes, the amino acids organized themselves into precursors of living cells. About 4 billion years later, on Aug. 10, 1998, the University of South Alabama scientist who procl ...[text shortened]... rubbs said. "He stood in awe of the power of nature to self-select -- to organize itself."
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by SkorjFirst, I reject your premise that The origin of life is not an integral part of the theory of evolution. your attempt to differentiate the origin of life from evolutionary theory is a rhetorical maneuver to circumvent the question of explaining the origin of life and hence the logical conclusion that this observation(unable to explain the origin of life) casts reasonable doubt on the validity of evolution.
Originally posted by skywalker red
[b]im confused? that is funny,, have you even been following the thread? the connection has already been made between the origin of life and evolutionary theory. And evolutionary theory DOES deal with the issue of how life arose, it states that life arose from non-living matter. go check it out. its all there in bla ...[text shortened]... plot in order to challenge your religious beliefs. You give yourself far too much credit.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redyou do yourself a disservice with this form of debating.
I would be happy to reveal my ideas on creation, but first I would like to get an answer the question that nobody seems to want to answer.
This is the FOURTH time im asking it without a sufficient answer, how do you explain the origin of life? come on all you evolutionists and so called "darwinists",, answer the question.
the only thing i have been able to gather so far in this whole thread is that you haven't offered any knowledge on the subject at hand whatsoever. my tentative conclusion is you haven't the foggiest.
so, along the same lines of debate, i would offer a similar question that everyone has been asking you without sufficient answer: what exactly is your argument?
if you want my opinion, a better way to go about this would be to present a coherent argument in the form 'i think darwin's theories are incomlete for this, that, and the other good reasons'...
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redThe theory of evolution does not care what you think it says. Life has to exist before it can evolve. It is logically impossible to talk about evolution unless life is already present.
First, I reject your premise that The origin of life is not an integral part of the theory of evolution. your attempt to differentiate the origin of life from evolutionary theory is a rhetorical maneuver to circumvent the question of explaining the origin of life and hence the logical conclusion that this observation(unable to explain the origin of life) casts reasonable doubt on the validity of evolution.
The origin of life is an interesting subject, but unlike evolution, it is still the subject of much speculation. These ideas may require evolution to explain how complexity arose from simple beginnings, but evolution in now way requires any of these ideas. I'm more than happy to discuss it, but not under the pretense that it ralates to evolution.