Where do you think life came from?

[Fun2BMe]

I have asked this question before and get varying answers..

 

Which religion and God is the real one ??

 

I used to wonder about this too but the answer is very simple. There is one God, but with so many different people there are many different religions made up to worship the same God. One God made everything and all religions who believe in a God credit him as the creator. Different stories can be told but in the end there is one God. Think of it this way. There could be a car accident with 5 different witnesses. Each witness could describe the accident in his way the way he thinks it happened, but at the end of the day all will agree that one accident took place at that scene. Hope that helps some.

[Fun2BMe]

If real I would hope that god would not have a penis..... I mean what in the world would he use it for?

 

Your posts aside from thread defilement rarely contribute to anything of value.

[Guest]

If someone believes in God, they believe he created the universe which as far as we know could be trillions of years old.

 

There is a good chunk of Fundies who take the Bible 'literally' (or so they claim) and who therefore think the world is 6000 years old. Nope, I'm not kidding.

[Rooster_DAR]

Can you possibly sight which experiment you are referring to? As far as I know we have been able to create some of the building molecules that organic matter is made out of but as far as creating life in a test tube, please provide any further info to be able to look this up! It would be all over the news to say the least have taken place in the last 14 months prior to which I was studying this in university and never learned of it.

 

Ahh! allow me to re-iterate. Life itself was not reproduced, but the building blocks of life (molecules) were reproduced, big difference. Regardless, this compounds the fact that life can arise seemingly out of nothing but matter throughout our universe.

 

Cheers!

[Fun2BMe]

Ahh! allow me to re-iterate. Life itself was not reproduced, but the building blocks of life (molecules) were reproduced, big difference. Regardless, this compounds the fact that life can arise seemingly out of nothing but matter throughout our universe.

 

Cheers!

 

Well, my inquiry isn't about building blocks but of life. How do you conclude that just because some of the building blocks were produced therefore life can arise out of them? That would make you believe that if we create a robot or a lifebearing object in the lab made out of organic compounds that it should come to life.

[Rooster_DAR]

That's a no brainer, the building blocks of just about everything are the pre-cursor to the object in question.

 

Go back to college and take a deeper look, you might be surprised at what you can learn.

 

Cheers!

[Fun2BMe]

That's a no brainer, the building blocks of just about everything are the pre-cursor to the object in question.

 

Go back to college and take a deeper look, you might be surprised at what you can learn.

 

Cheers!

 

That's your opinion that the building blocks of organic matter built from scratch will result in life in them such as human life different from animal life who don't have as much intelligence and communication skills of the human kind. All of the surprises in college never provided a satisfying answer to the question I pose. I'm glad they did for you.

[Rooster_DAR]

I applaud you for questioning the whole thing, and like science we can only speculate based on what we have so far. I do know that I speculate is based on evidence, and one day we may narrow the whole thing down. I certainly am not totally convinced of anything other than religion in it's traditional sense is false and inaccurate, I just look at the fossil records and the things science has uncovered as a very good probability.

 

Could I be wrong, absolutely.

[Fun2BMe]

I guess we get trapped in only trying to figure out life but the bigger picture is the whole universe and everything in and outside of it, where did it all come from. Life is only one of the wonders, but a big one since it seems to only exist on earth even though there was once water on mars and some of the planet moons still have oceans of waters in them yet no sign of life. And everything has so much design that it's hard to imagine they came into being spontaneously without a designer, just like a much simpler thing such as a cake is almost imposible to be made all by itself without someone making it.

[norajane]

Maybe if you didn't think of disparate ingredients that need to be mixed and baked into a cake and thought about mold growing on something. For me, it's not a huge leap from mold to something wtih legs and tentacles!

[Fun2BMe]

I think you're onto something there norajane. We'd probably get a ladybug from the ingredients before ever seeing a cake:laugh:

[magichands]

For me, it's not a huge leap from mold to something wtih legs and tentacles!

Tongue-in-cheek, maybe...but it actually is a huge leap between a cell that can divide, and a fertilised (single) cell that we all were once upon a time.

 

And whomever said that we are close to "creating" life in a test tube is misrepresenting reality. Genetic engineering is a neat trick, but it uses the cell's machinery to get the job done. Making a single cell from scratch is sheer lunacy right now.

 

I think someone recently made a self-replicating RNA molecule - whoop de doo. That sort of thing is really cool, and - who knows - may even be worthy of a Nobel...but it's a far, far cry from making a living cell.

[Fun2BMe]

Tongue-in-cheek, maybe...but it actually is a huge leap between a cell that can divide, and a fertilised (single) cell that we all were once upon a time.

 

And whomever said that we are close to "creating" life in a test tube is misrepresenting reality. Genetic engineering is a neat trick, but it uses the cell's machinery to get the job done. Making a single cell from scratch is sheer lunacy right now.

 

I think someone recently made a self-replicating RNA molecule - whoop de doo. That sort of thing is really cool, and - who knows - may even be worthy of a Nobel...but it's a far, far cry from making a living cell.

 

Intrinsically speaking, it's not really about making a living cell itself. We can take a freshly dead body with all the cells that could've let's say been made in a lab. How would you put life into it? But then again if we can make test tube babies, then maybe cells automatically pocess a life giving force since those fertilized eggs made fertile in a lab are born with life. I don't know I'm confusing myself at this point.

[magichands]

I don't know I'm confusing myself at this point.

You're doing good. The point is that "evolution" doesn't explain jack (or jill) about the origin of life. Well...maybe it will help us "trace back" to LUCA (last universal ancestor) - but then we have to go back even further.

 

I can't wait until they start serving primordial soup in the dining halls. Yum.

[Art_Critic]

The point is that "evolution" doesn't explain jack (or jill) about the origin of life.

 

I remember in science class when I was a wee pub that spontaneous generation was talked about in the books.. they even talked about a frog that was spontaneously created.

 

I googled spontaneous generation and came up with an interesting webpage 6 pages down..

[alphamale]

I remember in science class when I was a wee pub that spontaneous generation was talked about in the books.. they even talked about a frog that was spontaneously created...

yeah...wasn't that before the Scopes monkey trial?

[Fun2BMe]

You're doing good. The point is that "evolution" doesn't explain jack (or jill) about the origin of life. Well...maybe it will help us "trace back" to LUCA (last universal ancestor) - but then we have to go back even further.

Yes, I totally agree with this. I don't understand why so many evolutionists dismiss God. To me, there is traces of evolution but the bigger question is who set it in motion, created it in the first place. It seems to have too much design and intelligence to have come into being out of thin air.

[Art_Critic]

yeah...wasn't that before the Scopes monkey trial?

 

The Scopes monkey trial was in 1925.. I'm not that old

 

The text books I was refering to were from the 70's

[alphamale]

The Scopes monkey trial was in 1925.. I'm not that old :lmao:s

i know...it was a joke brother

[Fun2BMe]

I googled spontaneous generation and came up with an interesting webpage 6 pages down..

 

Are you referring to allaboutthejourney?

[Art_Critic]

Are you referring to allaboutthejourney?

 

Thats the one..

[Rooster_DAR]

Yes, I totally agree with this. I don't understand why so many evolutionists dismiss God. To me, there is traces of evolution but the bigger question is who set it in motion, created it in the first place. It seems to have too much design and intelligence to have come into being out of thin air.

 

Call me excentric (evil,atheist) or whatever you like, but somehow the evolution of life seems like a no brainer to me. I will again state over and over that 4 billion years is a tremendous amount of time for things to take place. To suggest divine intervention over nature seems very archaic to me.

 

(P.S. prayers never get answered, because noone is listening)

 

Like Charles Darwins stated, evolution is all around us, if you choose to see it. This is a profound statement, and should you choose to look you will be amazed. Religion previously would denounce such material as the devils work, but don't you find it amazing that now very many religions are now embracing evolution to a certain degree. You now find people that are religious that are into science trying to mend the two, but in fact I believe they will discover that that science is on the trail of the truth.

 

The reason I say no brainer is:

 

Do you really believe a man walked on water?

Do your really believe that two of every animal on the planet could fit into a wooden Arc?

If they could fit on such a device, there is not way an arc that size could maintain it's integrity with such a load. (Oh I forgot, it's magic!)

Do you really think the world could flood over if it rained straight for forty days and forty nights. (impossible)

 

Nonsense, this is not possible in the universe we live in. Makes a great fairy tale, but it simply not possible. Now if we somehow lived in the subatomic universe, I would say all of this is plausable.

 

Not to sound harsh, but people wake up and smell the coffee human history has pulled the wool over our eyes.

 

Regards,

[Fun2BMe]

Call me excentric (evil,atheist) or whatever you like, but somehow the evolution of life seems like a no brainer to me. I will again state over and over that 4 billion years is a tremendous amount of time for things to take place. To suggest divine intervention over nature seems very archaic to me.

I don't think that just because evolution exists that one should rule out that God exists. How is it archaic? Nobody seems to know how evolution came about, who designed it. Scientists find out how it works but not how it came to be.

 

(P.S. prayers never get answered, because noone is listening)

You and I both know that we can't prove this. Sometimes prayers aren't answered because in the bigger scheme of things which we don't comprehend yet, everything falls into place for some reason. If your prayer wasn't answered for one thing, somebody else could've been praying for the opposite to happen. The bible doesn't tell us to pray for things but to be grateful for what we have and to praise God.

 

Like Charles Darwins stated, evolution is all around us, if you choose to see it. This is a profound statement, and should you choose to look you will be amazed. Religion previously would denounce such material as the devils work, but don't you find it amazing that now very many religions are now embracing evolution to a certain degree. You now find people that are religious that are into science trying to mend the two, but in fact I believe they will discover that that science is on the trail of the truth.

Excuse me but even Darwin who discovered evolution, of all people, even he was extremely religious and throughout his writings and diaries gives credit to God for creating the things he discovers. It made his faith stronger. Not everyone is so brilliant so if it takes the rest of common folks longer to learn about these things and decide for themselves that they fit into religion, so be it. There's no deadline that if you don't believe xyz by a certain time that it's now meaningless to.

 

The reason I say no brainer is:

 

Do you really believe a man walked on water?

I think whether or not someone writes a book saying that a man walked on water will not prove or disprove whether or not there is a God. My faith isn't based on a man walking on water, even if I do believe he did.

Do your really believe that two of every animal on the planet could fit into a wooden Arc?

If they could fit on such a device, there is not way an arc that size could maintain it's integrity with such a load. (Oh I forgot, it's magic!)

Do you really think the world could flood over if it rained straight for forty days and forty nights. (impossible)

Again, whether or not someone wrote that an ark carried all those animals will not determine whether or not I believe in God. One could argue he only took the animals in the vicinity he lived in on the raft or any other explanation that can make sense. Then to go further and try to scientifically prove or disprove a flood that God made does not seem rational. It could be a metaphore for one of the great extinctions the earth has experienced, verified by science. But again, that will not determine my personal faith in God. I wish it did so I could firmly have a belief one way or the other, but I am always contemplating too many things and my feelings on the whole are too strong to be based on one story in one particular religion.

 

Nonsense, this is not possible in the universe we live in. Makes a great fairy tale, but it simply not possible. Now if we somehow lived in the subatomic universe, I would say all of this is plausable.

 

Not to sound harsh, but people wake up and smell the coffee human history has pulled the wool over our eyes.

 

Regards,

Again, I don't point to one book and give credit to that book as instilling faith in me. What about all the people in the world who will never learn to read or be exposed to written religion, yet they can feel in their hearts that there is a God. Regardless of my religious beliefs which I haven't written about yet, I am talking about God not being based on written documentation but based on intuition and an explanation for all that exists.

 

Do you think the bible was going to write about evolution at a time when man had not found any fossils? Was it going to write about computers, cars and modern technology too which people would not have been able to relate to? Its focus at the time was to teach people how to treat each other, something necessary as a prerequisite to later find out more things in life which we are in the process of doing. He did after all create birds and fish on one day and aniamals and man, grouped together the next. Again, we can read into the bible in many ways and I'm not getting into that but I don't feel as comfortable as you do to think the universe and everything in it came into being on its own out of the blue when so much design and thought has gone into it from what we can see.

[Rooster_DAR]

At the height of his revelations:

Charles Darwins was not religious and did not believe in the bible (when his daughter died). He was a dire agnostic, which tells me you need to do more research on this subject.

 

There are many contradictions in the bible, and we can choose to interpret that how we wish to. The fact is, the bible is full of holes that cannot be explained by physics and the laws of the universe, and this to me is a big red flag. The bible was written by man, so I would take that with a grain of salt. Think of it this way, we learn and become the person we are by what we see and learn as a child.

 

Whether directly or indirectly, we in fact become the person we are by what we learn when were young. We do reach a point where we stand on our own, but it's natural for the human mind to seek what we learned as a child we when are in stress or turmoil. Most of us have been taught very young that God is the allmighty, and your religion is pronounced as being the way you need to live your life.

 

I will lose this argument to people that are religious simply because of that reasoning alone, people brought up religious are not willing to let go of what they traditionally believe (myself being the exeception).

 

Simple question, why are there so many gods and religions? (This alone should be enough for anybody with a good sense of intelligence to figure out something is wrong here)

 

Simple answer, humans seek something higher than themselves so they don't feel empty and this notion was taught to children throughout the ages (not to mention the herbs hominants digested).

 

Yes, I believe it's a form of brainwashing, and we all know that humans can be brainwashed quite easily.

 

Regards!

 

Excerpts:

 

Charles Darwin had a Non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school. He studied Anglican theology with the aim of becoming a clergyman, before joining the Voyage of the Beagle. On return, he developed his theory of natural selection in full awareness that it conflicted with the teleological argument. Darwin deliberated about the Christian meaning of mortality and came to think that the religious instinct had evolved with society. With the death of his daughter Annie, Darwin lost all faith in a beneficent God and saw Christianity as futile. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.

[Fun2BMe]

Simple question, why are there so many gods and religions? (This alone should be enough for anybody with a good sense of intelligence to figure out something is wrong here)

 

Just because there are many religions doesn't mean that there are many Gods. Like the earlier analogy I made, there could be one accident at a particular intersection but with many different witnesses who can report it differently. It doesn't mean there were as many accidents as there were the number of witnesses with differing accounts of what happened.