How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time.
Quoted: The Force
From reading articles and listening to my Bio AP teacher, he said that some scientists agree that the first cell was created by a comet passing by the earth and "spreading" some molecules on to the surface of the earth. And comets (as my teacher says) are mostly composed as the same things organsims are.......
As far as science and creation - I'm not even going to pretend that I understand all of this. But here are some sites to check out:
(from http://www.theologyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5582):
The science of evolution is something that anyone that is adequately knowledgeable will accept. This is always true regardless of any other beliefs that the person may hold. Take me as an example, I am a Christian, and yet I wholly accept the science of evolution (SOE).
But the metaphysic of evolution (MOE) goes beyond science - far beyond - and is in fact no longer "science". I totally reject and oppose the MOE.
This is a lengthy topic so I'll just give you one example which should explain the distinction: the SOE says nothing about origins (how did life begin?... how did the universe begin?... etc.).
But the MOE does speak of these things - it has to! It speaks of a young universe "evolving"... stars "evolving"... chemical elements "evolving" through the process of nucleosynthesis in stars... planets "evolving" over billions of years until, sometimes, they "evolve" the right conditions that allows life to naturally emerge... then this life "evolves" into the complexity and diversity found in a planetary biota.
The totality of this is a metaphysic - it is not observable, repeatable, demonstrable, experimentally verifiable, or falsifiable... in short, it is not 'science' the way you understand science.
The trick is that the SOE and the MOE are intermingled in such a way that most people don't realize that they're swallowing the MOE when they truly only believe in the SOE.
& from (http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html):
Fast Facts...
on the origin of life -
During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.
As yet, Evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many elements of the cosmos.
It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.
There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.
&
THIS IS GOOD! - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm
Funny & interesting - http://www.case-creation.org.uk/acfc.html
Life is always changing and, although we have been able to shed a lot of nature, we to continue to evolve. Evolution is some what missleading because people tend to take it as progress, but the human race, especialy in modernized society, seems to be becoming less adept at survival. Take the introduction of medicine. It has the opposite effect of, say, pestisides. While organisims that we try to eradicate with pestisides evolve to be stronger and more immune, medice cause us to become weaker and more suceptible to invasion by virus and bacteria. That goes for all technology. Shoes make the soles of our feet softer, clothes cause us to shed our hair, and our lazy life styles make our muscles weaker. There is a good argument for the degrading of our brain power. It would be interesting to see what man will become in another few thousand years. Will we even be able to get out of our chairs?....lol no really sometimes i feel like im stuck to my computer chair.
Here's what I think about evolution:
I believe that the only way we reached our current state is through evolution. The first, tiny speck of a single-celled organism appeared, and slowly evolved into more complex life--invertebrates, fish, reptiles, insects, plants, fungi, birds, and mammals. The only possible way we could have gotten from being a little bug made up mostly of cytoplasm to being the most intelligent life we know of is through evolution. And we didn't just appear as we are today overnight. God didn't pick up a ball of mud and shape it into a little man who he named Adam. However, the only way for life to have appeared in the first place is through some sort of supernatural entity. The Christian creation thing at the beginning of the old testament is equivalent to something almost every culture in the world has--creation myth. For example, "long ago, the earth was an egg. Then a great spirit made a crack in the shell, reached into it, and pulled the two halves apart. He breathed onto the surface of the land, making air. He slit his arms and bled onto the earth, making water. When he is angry, he shakes the earth, making earthquakes. He created man in likeness of himself, and animals to inhabit the earth with him." That story sounds like a load of bull to anybody who has gotten out of the dark ages. I find it interesting that a lot of conservative Christians prefer to ignore science and believe in a creation myth that is thousands of years old and has no basis in fact. Whatever ancient it was who wrote the book of Genesis was doing what all cultures do--trying explain why we are here today, who created us, etc. etc. I'm not trying to offend anyone and I apologize if I did. That is my opinion only. So just to reiterate, I believe in evolution, but I also believe that there has to be some kind of divine power that created the first life form. He did not create us as we are today.
hockeyhorror: I agree--if anything, the human race is getting weaker, and the things we are fighting are getting stronger. Both material and figurative. We are trying to stop terrorism. This only makes the terrorists angrier at us and makes them want to attack us even more. So we fight them more. It becomes a vicious cycle.
Originally posted by Darth Revan
It has to do with the super-conservative right wing Christians--they don't believe in evolution because they take the bible quite literally, meaning that they think the earth and all life was created by god in a week.
God with a capitol G, DR. You might offend those super-conservative right wing Christians. Hell, calling them super-conservative my offend them.
Try not to get too religious in here, guys. Remember, it is against the rules to discuss religion, due to the fact that everyone is at each other's throats once they start to disagree. Trust me, I've been here awhile. 😬
Originally posted by The Force
3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
20. Would you explain the origin of any of the following 25 features of the earth: The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons, Mid-Oceanic Ridge, Continental Shelves and Slopes, Ocean Trenches, Seamounts and Tablemounts, Earthquakes, Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor Submarine Canyons, Coal and Oil Formations, Methane Hydrates, Ice Age Frozen Mammoths, Major Mountain Ranges, Overthrusts, Volcanoes and Lava, Geothermal Heat, Strata and Layered Fossils, Metamorphic Rock Limestone, Plateaus, Salt Domes, Jigsaw Fit of the Continents, Changing Axis Tilt, Comets, Asteroids and Meteoroids?
I'm only answering these two because 1)I'm too lazy and 2)a lot of my answers for the other ones would be almost identical
3. Simple--not everything that dies becomes a fossil. Any palientologist or biologist will tell you this. The chances of a living thing becoming a fossil after it dies are VERY, VERY small. Furthermore, scientists have pieced together a reasonable record of the earth's history based on fossils, rocks, the position of the continents, etc.
20. The Grand Canyon was formed by millions of years of the Colorado River eroding it slowly away. Any geologist will tell you this. They will also tell you how any of those other things (or at least the ones on Earth) came into being. Coal and Oil, for example, is merely single-celled life that has been slowly decomposing over the past billion years. Hence the name "fossil fuel".
Also, I disagree with whatever theory anybody comes up with as to how the universe came into being. There is absolutely no way to prove one theory right or wrong.
Yes, some things decompose rather than fossilize.
20. Canyons come from water running over one place for millions of years. Ridges, Shelves, Slopes, Trenches, Seamounts, Tablemounts, Earthquakes, Magnetic Variations, Volcanoes, Mountain Ranges, Overthrusts, types of rocks, Plateaus, Salt Domes all come from the continental plates moving and a few other factors. Coal and Oil formations are things decomposing and compressed. The jigsaw fit of continents is, once again, continental plates moving. Geothermal heat is from the core of the earth, which is friggin hot. Axis tilt comes from rotations of the Earth. Comets, Asteroids, and Meteoroids have nothing to do with Earth, they are just there.
Though, I have no idea what that has to do with evolution...
The Force> So you call people who do not agree with you retarded???
You seem to know absolutely nothing about cosmology. What on Earth gave you the idea, that Big Bang just blew up and created life like that –snaps fingers –
Only hydrogen and helium were created in Big bang. Heavier elements were created in stars, and ejected into space in supernovas. Heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen, which are among the building blocks of life.
You say you want to answer questions: Well, go ahead and answer the questions I posted in my previous post then. Such as the scientific evidence for creation.
1) Palaeontologists have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies, including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (an unnamed dromaeosaur from China) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al.1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"😉, Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.
2) Yes, living beings are complex. But the complexity of life doesn’t prove it was created by any divine being or beings. Nature also has quite a lot of organisms, that show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed by historical constraint:
In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.
In African locust, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.
3 There are gaps in the fossil record due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. Evolutions, however, explaions the fossils. Creationists do not, and cannot account for the age of the fossils if the Earth is only 6000 years old (as Bishop Ussher calculated it to be according to the Bible).
4) Scientists don't claim that cells and multi-cell creatures came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from more primitive precursors
5) That we can’t explain the origins of something, doesn’t prove divinity. A few hundred years ago, people had no clue how lightening worked, and even earlier that was contributed to Gods.
Before life evolved 3,8 billion years ago, the Earth atmosphere consisted mainly of CO2. The presence or not of oxygen, does not create a problem for evolution. That God appearantly first created a planet with CO2 atmosphere, and then changed his mind, is a problem for creationists.
6) Define intelligent signal. Let’s assume it has a specific pattern and is as such recognisable as being send by intelligent beings, and easily seen against the background of space, as having such a pattern. It’s exactly seeing it against a disordered background, that makes it recognisable to us humans, being intelligent. But if the rest of space is so disordered, then it is by definition NOT ordered, and God made a mess.
Also: Vast information stored in DNA does not prove intelligent design. As pointed out above, there’s a lot of appallingly bad designs in nature.
7) DNA codes for proteins that are either building blocks or codes for processes in the body. DNA does not code for DNA. Nonsense.
8) Just as senses evolved.
9) An arrowhead proved useful to early humans and therefore helped them survive. Do you know what fusion is? It’s what makes the sun our energy source. Fusion transform lighter elements into heavier elements. Do you really believe we do not consist of elements?
10) What three planets are you talking about? Are you talking about axis-rotation? That, say, Uranus spins around it’s “equator”? What’s wrong with that? It’s not a scientif puzzle. Impact with asteroids can force a planets spin to change. If some god created the solar-system, why the mess?
11) We currently believe the Earth was hit by a big meteor or asteroid, and the Moon was created through rejected material. Why should students be told the scientific reasons for rejecting the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What is your problem with the moons? There’s no scientific problems with moons.
12) Big Bang. Water simply consists of oxygen and hydrogen. What’s the problem with water now?
13) Through fusion. And through the growing amount of heavier elements. Older stars contain less amounts of heavier elements than younger stars. That’s a fact.
14) No, I’m not aware of unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who says the Earth is 4,5 billion years old. Again – science evolves. Which is a good thing. Evolutionary theory is in exactly the same condition as any other valid scientific theory, and many criticisms of it that rely on philosophy are misguided. Or do you claim that science is wrong? You’re not sitting by a computer?
15) What living bacteria in billion year old meteorites are YOU talking about??
16) According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and often erroneous data points. Barry Setterfield's hypothesis of a decay in the speed of light for example was based on flawed extrapolations from inaccurate measurements, many of which were taken hundreds of years ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
17) Because most likely the Earth’s climate changed drastically some 12.000 years go, giving rise to flood legends in many areas on Earth. This only proves that there may’ve been a flood. The producers of America's 1993 CBS television show, "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark," were hoaxed. Other ark discovery claims have not been substantiated. Why have no one found the Ark?
18) I have no idea where the claim of a recalculation of mitochondrial eve reset the date to 6000 years ago came from. Who did this recalculation? How was it done? I suspect that some creationist just made it up. It may shock you to learn this, but many creationists lie, and many more work to perpetuate the lies out of sheer, appalling ignorance.
19) Actually, no. We may be the Martians for all I know, life may’ve come here from Mars. Salt, organic chemicals etc. are not indigenous to Earth.
20) Geological features are created through such processes as erosion, Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, movement of tectonic plates, etc.
There. Easy as that. You, however, have not provided me with a single shred of evidence for Creationism. Creationism is NOT a science, since there is ZERO proof for it.
Julibug> But should a state be founded on something which cannot be proven??
Darth Evan> That religion is so wide-spread proves that many people need it. Why is debatable, today. But my guess is it’s fear of death and a need for a meaning of life.
That’s all fine and dandy, but religion should not govern a state. Morals and religion are not the same thing. History can give us enough examples of immoral Christians to show that.
Captain> Could I just ask you a question on the subject: Simply slap my fingers if it is disallowed 😄
The current version of the Bible has been through many translations. Theologists know of some wrong translations (e.i. the one that turned a Babylonian King into Lucifer). With that in mind, how can accept that the entire Bible is THE TRUTH? Why doesn’t it contain the cure for cancer? The cure against AIDS?
Originally posted by Darth Revan
Also, I disagree with whatever theory anybody comes up with as to how the universe came into being. There is absolutely no way to prove one theory right or wrong.
Exactly. Faith comes into play in either big bang or creation. No one can prove either one. The further from the beginning you go, the more science can prove.
That’s not exactly true. Evidence that proves the Big Bang theory ranges from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR among friends 😉), to professor Stephen Hawking proved in a paper, that ANY cosmology consistent with Einsteins general theory of Relativity (which has been proven) must’ve started out in a singularity (Big Bang).
Now, show me evidence that some God created everything 6000 years ago. And tell me how light from the Andromeda Galaxy (2 million lightyears away) could get to us in ONLY 6000 years
😱