dunsapy

You actually have 7 solutions. And the one you missed, was creation. Science here really is basing their trust, or faith, that science will come up with the correct answer and it is what they have been saying. But they really do not have any proof that it could happen without creation.

The process if reproducing, is not an easy thing, to have happen. Just for a cell to divide is an amazing thing. So where does the cell get this information to do this? Some here have said that evolution is not part of the start to life. This tells me that science does not know or have any consensuses of what the start to life is. That is why I asked for, some to give a start to where evolution it part of the process.

Is this the same for creation? Just as science with it's intelligence can use and understand math and algorithms so can a creator. I would think also that science could come up with a algorithm for bread. But that doesn't prove that bread happened on it's own. Claims are not science. Science can replicate many things that happen in the natural world. The real question is can the natural world replicate what science does in the lab? It only exist, in sciences mind. This is the whole problem with this theory. I did watch those video's, ( I have seen it before) It is the same problem, science is doing it in a lab. Is that proving, that is what happened? Also how do you know these these precursors to life you find were not created? Can anyone just off the street perform these experiments, or do you need special equipment and knowledge? And if this is the case, science does know what the first bit of life was, so what was it, did it have DNA with the instructions, and how did it know it has to survive and and also divide? Was this just one bit of life that happened or were there millions of these bits, and why do we not see these happening all over now with totally new types of life and evolution, with weird looking things? Do you consider evolution to be part of the start to life or not? There is evidence all around you, it is in the design of life. It is also why man is so different than the rest of life. OK, then ,.... where do you want to start evolution at? At what point?

I am not asking about the start to life. I am asking after some life is already started ,how does evolution work from then on?

But if science says evolution is a fact, where does science say it started? If science doesn't know, where does science think it started at? Or if this is not known where does science start their explanation of evolution?

Yes OK , but where does evolution start? I understand about not knowing how life started, but where does evolution start?

Yes I realize this. But once life is formed ( in sciences view) , where did evolution start? There must somewhere , to start for evolution to happen. You guys have said the start to life is different than evolution. So where did evolution start? ( what did it start from?)

OK I read some of this. This is a small quote from the Autocatalysis model The first thing I noticed "..... if a number of those reactions produce,....." The question is what if they don't produce? What happens then? Here is another quote from this article. The first thing he says it is a "potential explanation for abiogenesis" What if this 'potential explanation' is incorrect, what happens then? "This experiment demonstrated the possibility that autocatalysts could exhibit competition within a population of entities with heredity," This possibility, did really happen or are they saying it is only a possibility? The final result is, there is still no life, and experiments by the scientists, show intelligence, was involved to set up the experiments and mix certain chemicals together. How do you know a creator did not do the same thing. Besides this is on the I already quoted dictionary, that said biogenesis is discredited. This is only one of many ideas, so nothing is for sure. But I said that we should maybe go on to evolution because, science does not know how life started. So the question is, what was there for evolution to take place, was it a single cell, what type, plant or animals or what? Did it have DNA?

OK I can accept that science doesn't know how life started. So to be real science you have have your options open. You can't exclude creation. But if we go on from there to evolution, are you assuming that the first life was a single cell? If this is so , what kind of cell, plant or animal,or what? Did this cell have DNA in it?

I use the same evidence science uses. I use the same findings from science. I asked what was the first bit of life? How did it become life? And how do you know?

You would still have to prove, that life could happen on it's own. That it wasn't created. That doesn't change the science. This also shows the thinking of science that is not correct. Because there is a huge universe they say there has to be other life out there. But this is an assumption, that life started on it's own, and that it probably started elsewhere. But science has not figured it out here yet. So that wouldn't change the question about us. Something interesting about this is that science at one point was thinking that life came from somewhere else. And landed on the earth. But if you think about this , if life now started on Mars, could the Martians, say life started on it's own, or would they worship the Mars lander? But even there life comes from life. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Just use the evidence, that's all I do.

Yes your right. Here's the link. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis We have never seen it happen on it's own, we have never found it anywhere else. Science has researched and tries to create it, but so far have failed. So it is also evidence that much more knowledge is needed. There is design in the life we see. The only evidence we have therefore is that life comes from life. To think anything else is to go against the evidence. What evidence are you talking about. Please be specific. Why are they different? This all has to do with life. Is not the beginning of life a process like evolution?

If you don't want confusion , call it something else so people know which theory you are talking about. It is impossible , without creation. (With out intelligence to do it.) But the building blocks of life are here. This is just like making bread. Because someone gets all the ingredients and mixes them, and then bakes it. This doesn't show that it could happen on it's own. This only shows that a baker can make bread. So unless science just finds life happening, without their interference, they can't prove it. The other question is, why do you need the start to life and evolution to be separate. Shouldn't all of this all be part of the same theory, essentially the same process?

Yes your right. Abiogenesis has been discredited anyway. I do know the difference. Where does evolution start then?

I always thought the computer I am using and the programing , were done with intelligence. Even my web browser, was written code. Does that mean your web broswer is myth? The fact that some said here that there are at least 6 possible ways that life could have started, tells me science does not really know anything about this. I mean in a real way. Lets leave creation out of this. Lets just talk about the science. On the start to life, what proof does science have that life can start on it's own? I mean real life, not just parts , not just chemicals, I mean life.