What is abiogenesis?

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="123625"]

Life can't come from something non living so i don't see yor point. At least not by itself.

123625

Do you have indisputable proof that can back that up, and is in line with the known laws and theories of physics?

Well im sorry i don't beleive it that we came from non living material (Quite possibly a rock) Billions of years ago. If you beleive in that you have more faith than i do. There is no proof of it ever happening by itself without help. So untill it has been proven that it happened by natural means. the only possible way i see something like that happening is if it was guided. Am i wrong? for not beleiving in a theory? Ill ask you that.

No body thinks life came from a rock...

Well im sorry i don't beleive it that we came from non living material (Quite possibly a rock) Billions of years ago. If you beleive in that you have more faith than i do. There is no proof of it ever happening by itself without help. So untill it has been proven that it happened by natural means. the only possible way i see something like that happening is if it was guided. Am i wrong? for not beleiving in a theory? Ill ask you that.

123625

[QUOTE="123625"]

Well im sorry i don't beleive it that we came from non living material (Quite possibly a rock) Billions of years ago. If you beleive in that you have more faith than i do. There is no proof of it ever happening by itself without help. So untill it has been proven that it happened by natural means. the only possible way i see something like that happening is if it was guided. Am i wrong? for not beleiving in a theory? Ill ask you that.

DeeJayInphinity

My point is that such a beleif recquires faith, as it has not been proven. I know my god has not been proven, its faith and beleif. Its no different than thinking you came from a dead material billions of years ago. And for those who are saiyng im wrong about the rock, what was the first object we came from? Don't say dead cells or whatnot, give me the object.

Except my beleif makes more sense.

God gave life Vs Non living material gave life.

By common sense what makes more sense?

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="123625"]

Life can't come from something non living so i don't see yor point. At least not by itself.

123625

Do you have indisputable proof that can back that up, and is in line with the known laws and theories of physics?

Well im sorry i don't beleive it that we came from non living material (Quite possibly a rock) Billions of years ago. If you beleive in that you have more faith than i do. There is no proof of it ever happening by itself without help. So untill it has been proven that it happened by natural means. the only possible way i see something like that happening is if it was guided. Am i wrong? for not beleiving in a theory? Ill ask you that.

It didnt come from a rock.This video will explain,if you ignore this then i will give up,and anything you say afterwards will be considered fallacious by me and whoever else sees fit.Not that thats not the case already.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="123625"]

Well im sorry i don't beleive it that we came from non living material (Quite possibly a rock) Billions of years ago. If you beleive in that you have more faith than i do. There is no proof of it ever happening by itself without help. So untill it has been proven that it happened by natural means. the only possible way i see something like that happening is if it was guided. Am i wrong? for not beleiving in a theory? Ill ask you that.

123625

My point is that such a beleif recquires faith, as it has not been proven. I know my god has not been proven, its faith and beleif. Its no different than thinking you came from a dead material billions of years ago. And for those who are saiyng im wrong about the rock,

Except my beleif makes more sense.

God gave life Vs Non living material gave life.

By common sense what makes more sense?

I posted a video that will make sense of it.Please watch...

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="123625"]

Well im sorry i don't beleive it that we came from non living material (Quite possibly a rock) Billions of years ago. If you beleive in that you have more faith than i do. There is no proof of it ever happening by itself without help. So untill it has been proven that it happened by natural means. the only possible way i see something like that happening is if it was guided. Am i wrong? for not beleiving in a theory? Ill ask you that.

123625

My point is that such a beleif recquires faith, as it has not been proven. I know my god has not been proven, its faith and beleif. Its no different than thinking you came from a dead material billions of years ago. And for those who are saiyng im wrong about the rock,

Except my beleif makes more sense.

God gave life Vs Non living material gave life.

By common sense what makes more sense?

The one with evidence to back it up.

I said this once many months ago and I'll say it again:

We are all biased in some way. One person can look at one theory and see that it's perfect, and another can see that same theory and see so many holes in it. That's the problem with these threads, is that people are pointing to holes that others see as nonexistant.

And when I first typed and posted that, someone said he saw my point on a religious level, but not on the topic on evolution or, in this case, abiogenesis, saying that evidence proves it. Well, here's my answer: I think our viewpoint on the universe applies to every single thing on this earth, like fossils, a Creationist can say it came from the Flood, while an evolutionist can say it took many long years to make it. It's how you view it. Evidence can seem like crap if you see it like that. I don't want to send an agenda, trying to say a theory is wrong or correct, because I'll get to another arguement that gets to nowhere thanks to these viewpoints, and I'm not saying that because I have no way to back up myself in an arguement, I have been observing these boards and what seems like a good arguement can seem like crap to others, and not just here in OT either. I've seen this in the Christian Union from time to time. Good night, and I really hope you guys are getting to where I'm getting at, and not get the idea that I'm trying to get around proof, because I really skimmed these posts in this thread because I'm tired and I'm temporary banned from YouTube as well, and I really miss being on that site, awesome videos in there...

nonliving matter coming to life

which is NEVER going to happen

Revinh

Well im sorry i don't beleive it that we came from non living material (Quite possibly a rock) Billions of years ago. If you beleive in that you have more faith than i do. There is no proof of it ever happening by itself without help. So untill it has been proven that it happened by natural means, its theory. The only possible way i see something like that happening is if it was guided. Am i wrong? for not beleiving in a theory? Ill ask you that.

123625

You're making a lot of broad assumptions, so I am going to help you here.

First of all...no one said "we" came from a "rock". That is utterly preposterous, and implies that you know nothing about abiogenesis, or have been ignoring everyone else, or both. Abiogenesis explains the origin of life from non-living matter. Meaning it explains how the first one-celled organisms came to be on this planet, not how we came to be. That part is explained by evolution.

There is no proof of it ever happening by itself without help.

123625

But that puts the burden of proof on you...how and why is help needed?

So untill it has been proven that it happened by natural means, its theory.

123625

Though a Scientific theory has more value than a theory in the colloquial use of the term, thanks for reiterating a point we already figured out. Glad to know we are on the same page.

The only possible way i see something like that happening is if it was guided.

123625

Oh? I would like to see proof that backs that claim up - not an opinion. I warn you though, incredulity is not an argument.

Am i wrong? for not beleiving in a theory? Ill ask you that.

123625

You are not wrong for doubting the theory of abiogenesis, but you would be if you completely discounted it's validity.

I said this once many months ago and I'll say it again:

We are all biased in some way. One person can look at one theory and see that it's perfect, and another can see that same theory and see so many holes in it. That's the problem with these threads, is that people are pointing to holes that others see as nonexistant.

And when I first typed and posted that, someone said he saw my point on a religious level, but not on the topic on evolution or, in this case, abiogenesis, saying that evidence proves it. Well, here's my answer: I think our viewpoint on the universe applies to every single thing on this earth, like fossils, a Creationist can say it came from the Flood, while an evolutionist can say it took many long years to make it. It's how you view it. Evidence can seem like crap if you see it like that. I don't want to send an agenda, trying to say a theory is wrong or correct, because I'll get to another arguement that gets to nowhere thanks to these viewpoints, and I'm not saying that because I have no way to back up myself in an arguement, I have been observing these boards and what seems like a good arguement can seem like crap to others, and not just here in OT either. I've seen this in the Christian Union from time to time. Good night, and I really hope you guys are getting to where I'm getting at, and not get the idea that I'm trying to get around proof, because I really skimmed these posts in this thread because I'm tired and I'm temporary banned from YouTube as well, and I really miss being on that site, awesome videos in there...

Fireball2500

Still you can't back down when the other side is spreading lies and completely discarding hard evidence. Darwin went through it.

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"]

I said this once many months ago and I'll say it again:

We are all biased in some way. One person can look at one theory and see that it's perfect, and another can see that same theory and see so many holes in it. That's the problem with these threads, is that people are pointing to holes that others see as nonexistant.

And when I first typed and posted that, someone said he saw my point on a religious level, but not on the topic on evolution or, in this case, abiogenesis, saying that evidence proves it. Well, here's my answer: I think our viewpoint on the universe applies to every single thing on this earth, like fossils, a Creationist can say it came from the Flood, while an evolutionist can say it took many long years to make it. It's how you view it. Evidence can seem like crap if you see it like that. I don't want to send an agenda, trying to say a theory is wrong or correct, because I'll get to another arguement that gets to nowhere thanks to these viewpoints, and I'm not saying that because I have no way to back up myself in an arguement, I have been observing these boards and what seems like a good arguement can seem like crap to others, and not just here in OT either. I've seen this in the Christian Union from time to time. Good night, and I really hope you guys are getting to where I'm getting at, and not get the idea that I'm trying to get around proof, because I really skimmed these posts in this thread because I'm tired and I'm temporary banned from YouTube as well, and I really miss being on that site, awesome videos in there...

bobaban

Still you can't back down when the other side is spreading lies and completely discarding hard evidence. Darwin went through it.

Like I said, I'm not attacking one side, I'm not attacking a particular person, I'm attacking the whole debate as a whole. I hate it. I HATE IT.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

nonliving matter coming to life

which is NEVER going to happen

cowboymonkey21

you know nothing of why Jesus was resurected.

[QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

nonliving matter coming to life

which is NEVER going to happen

123625

you know nothing of why Jesus was resurected.

Did you watch the video i posted?

[QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

nonliving matter coming to life

which is NEVER going to happen

123625

you know nothing of why Jesus was resurected.

I found this to be informative.gobo212

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

nonliving matter coming to life

which is NEVER going to happen

bman784

you know nothing of why Jesus was resurected.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="123625"]We don't claim to know, we claim to beleive we know what happened. Big difference. The bible is not science, its faith and beleif. TRevinh

No i don't dissmiss them i see them as ilogical. Possibly the way you see christianity. No i actually beleived in Evolution, untill i found out its all theory and speculation. Also beleived we came from a rock once two and big bang, though now i see them as illogical. Have you ever tired learning about christianity? if not thats a double standard.

(Don't comment on my view on evolution, mr monkey sig guy.)

Evolution doesn't state that we came from the big bang, nor does it state that we came from a rock....

You really need to learn how science works, just because something is a theory, does not mean it's not true, just look at gravitational theory, and pure speculation would imply a lack of evidence, but evolution has a lot.

A lot of evidence based on imagination that is.

Let's see there's;

The fossil record

Evidence within DNA such as redundant and junk dna

vestigial structures

evidence from comparitive anatomy

evidence from continental

universal biochemical organization

molecular varience patters.

ect. ect.

I know. Like I said, it has overwhelming evidence based on imagination.

It's a lot of interpretation based on preconceived ideas.

Please explain to me how evolution is based on preconceived ideas. Last time I checked science doesn't support preconceived ideas. Ideas are formed based upon observations in the form of a hypothesis, not imagination. Evidence not imagination, do you understand?

Let's turn this around, god is an idea based on imagination....but without evidence.
Logically that sets it one step below what you percieve to be imaginary right?

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Uh, actually I know about the theory. I didn't say it appeared at random. I was saying it's impossible to have been formed without a Creator. It's extremely complicated it would have to be purposely designed. And again, even if the essential elements can come together it'd still be dead. It wouldn't come to life.

123625

Just drop it c_town hes delusional.

Hes delusional because he doesnt beleive we came from dead matter?

Made a mistake. non living*

I have a question, if i post a video will you watch it?

Life can't come from something non living so i don't see yor point. At least not by itself.

Yes it can, look into it.

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

nonliving matter coming to life

which is NEVER going to happen

elblanquito_81

you know nothing of why Jesus was resurected.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

Uh, actually I know about the theory. I didn't say it appeared at random. I was saying it's impossible to have been formed without a Creator. It's extremely complicated it would have to be purposely designed. And again, even if the essential elements can come together it'd still be dead. It wouldn't come to life.

C_Town_Soul

first, that's speculation. second, things don't even become more complex.

Wow I find it amazing these kind of threads still pop up.

Alright first, scientists HAVE been getting closer to creating "life".

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22827585/

Second, I'll show you a simple chart.

Science:

Evidence -----> make a theory

Religion:

make a theory ----> evidence..?

That should be obvious enough I believe.

There is no such rule as "life can not be created from non life." Just because we humans haven't witnessed it (yet), does not mean it is impossible and definately doesn't mean it automatically makes another theory correct.

Also, when you talk of life being "too complicated to be created by chance", you might as well say "my mom makes the best cookies evarrr." How complicated or complex something is can only be contrasted to what we have discovered so far, plus cells were much less "complicated" when life first began.

There is still very much to be learned about our universe and our home, Earth, but just because we have no definite proof that would convert every creationist, does not and never will mean that god automatically wins the argument.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="bobaban"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="bobaban"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

...it's impossible

nothing is going to happen if you just put the right chemicals together. it's not gonna be alive.

bobaban

But has He ever been disproven? (the sig is so... amazing)

No, but that's not my point. I was just saying that if abiogenesis was impossible, as that guy said, then God would've been proven. At least, I assume so... It's either one or the other, right? Oh, and thanks. :P

Well, there's the law of biogenesis. Life can only come from pre-existing life. So I guess that proves God.

You should really do some research before throwing out the possibilities. Anytime there is a hole in a theory every religious fanatic attributes the reason to god. Because its the simple solution God is the answer to whatever answer we can't conceive. There is supporting evidence for RNA strands to be formed in a reducing environment which the earth's atmosphere once was at a time. It's jsut too conicendental not to have happened in that way just like evoultion. Again this is just the HOW. Not the WHY. Which will always remain a mystery.

You should really read my previous posts before throwing a reply.

First, it's impossible for an extremely complex cell to even form at random. Amino acids would have to be in complicated chains to form a protein.

And even if that's possible, you can form all the RNA, amino acids, or whatever essential components...it still won't come to life. You'd have to "turn it on."

And no, I'm not using God as an answer to something I can't conceive. It's a logical conclusion. If life can only come from pre-existing life then there must be a Life-Giver, the source and origin of life.

I can see you know nothing about the theory about abiogenesis. The cell didn't just appear at random.There were a huge number of occurences that created the cell. Such as endosymbiosis where one cell consumed another and used it as a powerhouse (now known as the mitochondria). There is DNA evidence linking this as well. There is nothing to turn on....that's basically you're creationist beliefs at work. Life CAN come from non-life, BUT only when the earth was in a reducing environment(where molecules are combined). The earth now has an oxidizing environment where bigger molecules are broken down. Please don't comback with intelligent design that's just creationism in disguise.

P.S. I'm not saying their isn't a God, external force, etc nor am I saying there is. But there is enough scientific evidence to show how life may arise from non-life.

Uh, actually I know about the theory. I didn't say it appeared at random. I was saying it's impossible to have been formed without a Creator. It's extremely complicated it would have to be purposely designed. And again, even if the essential elements can come together it'd still be dead. It wouldn't come to life.

Yes, you did say at random. Do you know what you are even saying? So complicated?

No. I really could go into detail about chemcial affinities and bond formations. But you'll throw it out the window like every other religious fanatic and say it was designed by God (which I said earlier don't comback with intelligent design). Where is YOUR evidence that if the essential elements came together nothing would happen.

That's what I thought you have none.

Yes, let's say I said random and yes it's extremely complicated. What are you saying, that it could've possibly happened?? One, simple protein being formed by chance is 1 in 10^113 and you're holding on to faith that that could've happened?? Do you know how ridiculous you sound? And how could it even come life even if the impossible formation happens? I already told you it'd have to be 'turned on'. You could put all the RNA and whatever you want it's NEVER going to come alive. It's quite common sense. Life only comes from pre-existing life, dude.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="123625"]We don't claim to know, we claim to beleive we know what happened. Big difference. The bible is not science, its faith and beleif. Tyoshi-lnex

No i don't dissmiss them i see them as ilogical. Possibly the way you see christianity. No i actually beleived in Evolution, untill i found out its all theory and speculation. Also beleived we came from a rock once two and big bang, though now i see them as illogical. Have you ever tired learning about christianity? if not thats a double standard.

(Don't comment on my view on evolution, mr monkey sig guy.)

Evolution doesn't state that we came from the big bang, nor does it state that we came from a rock....

You really need to learn how science works, just because something is a theory, does not mean it's not true, just look at gravitational theory, and pure speculation would imply a lack of evidence, but evolution has a lot.

A lot of evidence based on imagination that is.

Let's see there's;

The fossil record

Evidence within DNA such as redundant and junk dna

vestigial structures

evidence from comparitive anatomy

evidence from continental

universal biochemical organization

molecular varience patters.

ect. ect.

I know. Like I said, it has overwhelming evidence based on imagination.

It's a lot of interpretation based on preconceived ideas.

Please explain to me how evolution is based on preconceived ideas. Last time I checked science doesn't support preconceived ideas. Ideas are formed based upon observations in the form of a hypothesis, not imagination. Evidence not imagination, do you understand?

Let's turn this around, god is an idea based on imagination....but without evidence.
Logically that sets it one step below what you percieve to be imaginary right?

Except gravity and atom are more like facts, unlike evolution which is more like a hypothesis and not a well-supported one.

Except gravity and atom are more like facts, unlike evolution which is more like a hypothesis and not a well-supported one.

Revinh

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

nonliving matter coming to life

which is NEVER going to happen

bman784

you know nothing of why Jesus was resurected.

Resurrected by God, of course.

it'd have to be 'turned on'. You could put all the RNA and whatever you want it's NEVER going to come alive. It's quite common sense. Life only comes from pre-existing life, dude.

Revinh

Can you PLEASE enlighten me on the scientific evidence/proof/theory etc. that suggests life has to be turned on and it can only come from pre existing life? No ok you can't, so maybe you should drop that arguement.

Let me ask you this, do you believe viruses are alive? Do yourself a favour and don't look it up, just think about it and answer.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]Except gravity and atom are more like facts, unlike evolution which is more like a hypothesis and not a well-supported one.bman784

Yeah, but I've talked about evolution enough and this thread isn't even about that. I'd have to make you read that superior thread.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="123625"]We don't claim to know, we claim to beleive we know what happened. Big difference. The bible is not science, its faith and beleif. TRevinh

No i don't dissmiss them i see them as ilogical. Possibly the way you see christianity. No i actually beleived in Evolution, untill i found out its all theory and speculation. Also beleived we came from a rock once two and big bang, though now i see them as illogical. Have you ever tired learning about christianity? if not thats a double standard.

(Don't comment on my view on evolution, mr monkey sig guy.)

Evolution doesn't state that we came from the big bang, nor does it state that we came from a rock....

You really need to learn how science works, just because something is a theory, does not mean it's not true, just look at gravitational theory, and pure speculation would imply a lack of evidence, but evolution has a lot.

A lot of evidence based on imagination that is.

Let's see there's;

The fossil record

Evidence within DNA such as redundant and junk dna

vestigial structures

evidence from comparitive anatomy

evidence from continental

universal biochemical organization

molecular varience patters.

ect. ect.

I know. Like I said, it has overwhelming evidence based on imagination.

It's a lot of interpretation based on preconceived ideas.

Please explain to me how evolution is based on preconceived ideas. Last time I checked science doesn't support preconceived ideas. Ideas are formed based upon observations in the form of a hypothesis, not imagination. Evidence not imagination, do you understand?

Let's turn this around, god is an idea based on imagination....but without evidence.
Logically that sets it one step below what you percieve to be imaginary right?

Except gravity and atom are more like facts, unlike evolution which is more like a hypothesis and not a well-supported one.

You didn't explain what I asked.

How are the atom and gravity well supported, but not evolution? In these cases the evidence is very overwhelming.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

it'd have to be 'turned on'. You could put all the RNA and whatever you want it's NEVER going to come alive. It's quite common sense. Life only comes from pre-existing life, dude.

MindFreeze

Can you PLEASE enlighten me on the scientific evidence/proof/theory etc. that suggests life has to be turned on and it can only come from pre existing life? No ok you can't, so maybe you should drop that arguement.

Let me ask you this, do you believe viruses are alive? Do yourself a favour and don't look it up, just think about it and answer.

It's called law of biogenesis. Pasteur proved it like a century ago or something. Of course it would have to be turned on, just forming it with the right chemicals wouldn't do the trick.

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Uh, actually I know about the theory. I didn't say it appeared at random. I was saying it's impossible to have been formed without a Creator. It's extremely complicated it would have to be purposely designed. And again, even if the essential elements can come together it'd still be dead. It wouldn't come to life.

Revinh

first, that's speculation. second, things don't even become more complex.

Where do you get these ideas?

[QUOTE="MindFreeze"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

it'd have to be 'turned on'. You could put all the RNA and whatever you want it's NEVER going to come alive. It's quite common sense. Life only comes from pre-existing life, dude.

Revinh

Can you PLEASE enlighten me on the scientific evidence/proof/theory etc. that suggests life has to be turned on and it can only come from pre existing life? No ok you can't, so maybe you should drop that arguement.

Let me ask you this, do you believe viruses are alive? Do yourself a favour and don't look it up, just think about it and answer.

It's called law of biogenesis. Pasteur proved it like a century ago or something. Of course it would have to be turned on, just forming it with the right chemicals wouldn't do the trick.

you just have to look at the evidence.

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Except gravity and atom are more like facts, unlike evolution which is more like a hypothesis and not a well-supported one.Revinh

Yeah, but I've talked about evolution enough and this thread isn't even about that. I'd have to make you read that superior thread.

[QUOTE="MindFreeze"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

it'd have to be 'turned on'. You could put all the RNA and whatever you want it's NEVER going to come alive. It's quite common sense. Life only comes from pre-existing life, dude.

Revinh

Can you PLEASE enlighten me on the scientific evidence/proof/theory etc. that suggests life has to be turned on and it can only come from pre existing life? No ok you can't, so maybe you should drop that arguement.

Let me ask you this, do you believe viruses are alive? Do yourself a favour and don't look it up, just think about it and answer.

It's called law of biogenesis. Pasteur proved it like a century ago or something. Of course it would have to be turned on, just forming it with the right chemicals wouldn't do the trick.

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Uh, actually I know about the theory. I didn't say it appeared at random. I was saying it's impossible to have been formed without a Creator. It's extremely complicated it would have to be purposely designed. And again, even if the essential elements can come together it'd still be dead. It wouldn't come to life.

C_Town_Soul

Just drop it c_town hes delusional.

I wish there were some somewhat intelligent evolutionists who would be worthwhile debating that could try to comprehend with given evidences for creation.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Uh, actually I know about the theory. I didn't say it appeared at random. I was saying it's impossible to have been formed without a Creator. It's extremely complicated it would have to be purposely designed. And again, even if the essential elements can come together it'd still be dead. It wouldn't come to life.

The_Ish

Just drop it c_town hes delusional.

Hes delusional because he doesnt beleive we came from dead matter?

"dead" implies that matter was once living.

And no, he is delusional because he refuses to give ground to any reason, not that he does not find any validity in the theory of abiogenesis.

No one said a creator couldn't have planned life through abiogenesis, so I don't know whats his problem is.

Well, abiogenesis is impossible so I don't know what your problem is.

It's called law of biogenesis. Pasteur proved it like a century ago or something. Of course it would have to be turned on, just forming it with the right chemicals wouldn't do the trick.

Revinh

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Uh, actually I know about the theory. I didn't say it appeared at random. I was saying it's impossible to have been formed without a Creator. It's extremely complicated it would have to be purposely designed. And again, even if the essential elements can come together it'd still be dead. It wouldn't come to life.

Revinh

Just drop it c_town hes delusional.

I wish there were some somewhat intelligent evolutionists who would be worthwhile debating that could try to comprehend with given evidences for creation.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Uh, actually I know about the theory. I didn't say it appeared at random. I was saying it's impossible to have been formed without a Creator. It's extremely complicated it would have to be purposely designed. And again, even if the essential elements can come together it'd still be dead. It wouldn't come to life.

Revinh

Just drop it c_town hes delusional.

Hes delusional because he doesnt beleive we came from dead matter?

"dead" implies that matter was once living.

And no, he is delusional because he refuses to give ground to any reason, not that he does not find any validity in the theory of abiogenesis.

No one said a creator couldn't have planned life through abiogenesis, so I don't know whats his problem is.

Well, abiogenesis is impossible so I don't know what your problem is.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Uh, actually I know about the theory. I didn't say it appeared at random. I was saying it's impossible to have been formed without a Creator. It's extremely complicated it would have to be purposely designed. And again, even if the essential elements can come together it'd still be dead. It wouldn't come to life.

Revinh

Just drop it c_town hes delusional.

Hes delusional because he doesnt beleive we came from dead matter?

"dead" implies that matter was once living.

And no, he is delusional because he refuses to give ground to any reason, not that he does not find any validity in the theory of abiogenesis.

No one said a creator couldn't have planned life through abiogenesis, so I don't know whats his problem is.

Well, abiogenesis is impossible so I don't know what your problem is.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Uh, actually I know about the theory. I didn't say it appeared at random. I was saying it's impossible to have been formed without a Creator. It's extremely complicated it would have to be purposely designed. And again, even if the essential elements can come together it'd still be dead. It wouldn't come to life.

Revinh

Just drop it c_town hes delusional.

Hes delusional because he doesnt beleive we came from dead matter?

"dead" implies that matter was once living.

And no, he is delusional because he refuses to give ground to any reason, not that he does not find any validity in the theory of abiogenesis.

No one said a creator couldn't have planned life through abiogenesis, so I don't know whats his problem is.

Well, abiogenesis is impossible so I don't know what your problem is.

Don't just say it's impossible, give us something to support your claims. C_Town_Soul already said above ^^^^^ how you were misunderstanding the law of biogenesis.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="MindFreeze"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

it'd have to be 'turned on'. You could put all the RNA and whatever you want it's NEVER going to come alive. It's quite common sense. Life only comes from pre-existing life, dude.

bman784

Can you PLEASE enlighten me on the scientific evidence/proof/theory etc. that suggests life has to be turned on and it can only come from pre existing life? No ok you can't, so maybe you should drop that arguement.

Let me ask you this, do you believe viruses are alive? Do yourself a favour and don't look it up, just think about it and answer.

It's called law of biogenesis. Pasteur proved it like a century ago or something. Of course it would have to be turned on, just forming it with the right chemicals wouldn't do the trick.

I don't disagree that living things are made up of elements from nonliving things. It even says in the Bible God formed man out of dust. But it's impossible that even a single protein had formed by itself. And it's impossible that it could've come to life even if it had formed. It would need, I don't know, a 'pulse' or something. God blew into Adam's nostrils and he became alive. (Not that I'm using that as evidence, just like, an analogy.)

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

It's called law of biogenesis. Pasteur proved it like a century ago or something. Of course it would have to be turned on, just forming it with the right chemicals wouldn't do the trick.

C_Town_Soul

Law of biogenesis: life only comes from preexisting life. Plain and simple. Hence, nonliving things cannot bring itself to life.

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="MindFreeze"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

it'd have to be 'turned on'. You could put all the RNA and whatever you want it's NEVER going to come alive. It's quite common sense. Life only comes from pre-existing life, dude.

Revinh

Can you PLEASE enlighten me on the scientific evidence/proof/theory etc. that suggests life has to be turned on and it can only come from pre existing life? No ok you can't, so maybe you should drop that arguement.

Let me ask you this, do you believe viruses are alive? Do yourself a favour and don't look it up, just think about it and answer.

It's called law of biogenesis. Pasteur proved it like a century ago or something. Of course it would have to be turned on, just forming it with the right chemicals wouldn't do the trick.

I don't disagree that living things are made up of elements from nonliving things. It even says in the Bible God formed man out of dust. But it's impossible that even a single protein had formed by itself. And it's impossible that it could've come to life even if it had formed. It would need, I don't know, a 'pulse' or something. God blew into Adam's nostrils and he became alive. (Not that I'm using that as evidence, just like, an analogy.)

and proteins didn't form by themselfs, dna helped.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Uh, actually I know about the theory. I didn't say it appeared at random. I was saying it's impossible to have been formed without a Creator. It's extremely complicated it would have to be purposely designed. And again, even if the essential elements can come together it'd still be dead. It wouldn't come to life.

yoshi-lnex

Just drop it c_town hes delusional.

I wish there were some somewhat intelligent evolutionists who would be worthwhile debating that could try to comprehend with given evidences for creation.

You can wait forever unless you can be able to comprehend.

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="MindFreeze"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

it'd have to be 'turned on'. You could put all the RNA and whatever you want it's NEVER going to come alive. It's quite common sense. Life only comes from pre-existing life, dude.

Revinh

Can you PLEASE enlighten me on the scientific evidence/proof/theory etc. that suggests life has to be turned on and it can only come from pre existing life? No ok you can't, so maybe you should drop that arguement.

Let me ask you this, do you believe viruses are alive? Do yourself a favour and don't look it up, just think about it and answer.

It's called law of biogenesis. Pasteur proved it like a century ago or something. Of course it would have to be turned on, just forming it with the right chemicals wouldn't do the trick.

I don't disagree that living things are made up of elements from nonliving things. It even says in the Bible God formed man out of dust. But it's impossible that even a single protein had formed by itself. And it's impossible that it could've come to life even if it had formed. It would need, I don't know, a 'pulse' or something. God blew into Adam's nostrils and he became alive. (Not that I'm using that as evidence, just like, an analogy.)

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

It's called law of biogenesis. Pasteur proved it like a century ago or something. Of course it would have to be turned on, just forming it with the right chemicals wouldn't do the trick.

Revinh

Law of biogenesis: life only comes from preexisting life. Plain and simple. Hence, nonliving things cannot bring itself to life.

Just because something is a law in science does not mean it is a proven fact. Just look at Newton's "laws" which were shown to be only approximations by quantum mechanics and relativity.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="MindFreeze"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

it'd have to be 'turned on'. You could put all the RNA and whatever you want it's NEVER going to come alive. It's quite common sense. Life only comes from pre-existing life, dude.

yoshi-lnex

Can you PLEASE enlighten me on the scientific evidence/proof/theory etc. that suggests life has to be turned on and it can only come from pre existing life? No ok you can't, so maybe you should drop that arguement.

Let me ask you this, do you believe viruses are alive? Do yourself a favour and don't look it up, just think about it and answer.

It's called law of biogenesis. Pasteur proved it like a century ago or something. Of course it would have to be turned on, just forming it with the right chemicals wouldn't do the trick.

I don't disagree that living things are made up of elements from nonliving things. It even says in the Bible God formed man out of dust. But it's impossible that even a single protein had formed by itself. And it's impossible that it could've come to life even if it had formed. It would need, I don't know, a 'pulse' or something. God blew into Adam's nostrils and he became alive. (Not that I'm using that as evidence, just like, an analogy.)

and proteins didn't form by themselfs, dna helped.

And I thought evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life..

proteins, dna, rna, whatever, the entire cell - it's delusional to think it could've happened, let alone dead matter becoming alive

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

It's called law of biogenesis. Pasteur proved it like a century ago or something. Of course it would have to be turned on, just forming it with the right chemicals wouldn't do the trick.

Revinh

Law of biogenesis: life only comes from preexisting life. Plain and simple. Hence, nonliving things cannot bring itself to life.

"This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that life does not currently spontaneously arise in nature in its present forms from non-life."

I think you still don't understand it.