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.

I have always looked at gravity as a fact, it works for the Russians, it works for the Canadians, and it works for the Americans. So Gravity is a fact. How it works maybe still under question.

The laws of the universe and of life can give predictive answers. The periodic table , is the same idea. Science knew from their findings that they should find, elements that they did not know how to detect yet. But because of the organized way these elements are set up, predictive elements could be counted on. Really evolution is not based on predictability. It is a haphazard idea. It is, try something, and if it doesn't kill the host, then it may keep it, but there is no idea with evolution that it need to make a leg with all it's parts. Science is using predictability of design, for evolution ,when evolution has no predictability at all. Science is going ahead of what they know. First they should find out how life started , and if it could start on it's own or not. Then find out from a single cell if evolution like science says could happen, before they build a whole theroy like evolution not knowing, if life could even happen at all without a designer. The fact that science has had trouble with this idea of the start to life with all of it's research and equipment, tells you that it is going to take more research and experiments to find this out. If they succeed it only shows that it took a lot of intelligence to create life. Unless of course , they just find it happening some place. All the evidence supports creation. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The term species is a science derived term. It is not universal standard, and does it conform to the creation's word 'kinds'? Science themselves can not decide exactly what a species is. No one knows exactly how far 'kinds' goes when describing types of animals? So really what the question is, does all life as we see it, come from some single cell? That includes plants.

I think what you are getting at here is that ,you want the formula for creating life. We are not told how it was done. This is something science wanted to take on. Which is OK, ....we were given a brain that asks all these types of questions and to search for answers. This has nothing to do with survival. But it does make our lives interesting. This also fits the idea of creation. I am not really questioning the science that is found. It is the interpretation of the science. So all the things science has learned, is of value. Finding DNA was incredible, to try an figure out the coding in DNA , is also incredible. This tells you that these things didn't just happen, it was planed out. Science is reverse engineering DNA and life, but that doesn't mean it wasn't created in the first place. I mean it was done in some way, science is trying to find out how. Creation has no problem with that.

I have already mentioned the evidence, but beside the impossibility of life starting on it's own, there is amazing design, all the life we see. Now these first two are religious questions. But there is no problem with the universe and earth, being millions or billions of years old. As for who is the creator, or for that matter what was the beginning? I have to accept that there is no beginning. A creator was always there. This supports life coming from life. It is no different for science. What was there before the universe? If it was energy , where did that come from? With no material in space, where does it begin where does it end? I don't understand 'no beginning'! I can understand no end. But science has the same problem.

But that isn't what the evidence shows. It science that has a mistaken view. I already answered this in earlier post. Yes I do know that these are two different, things. But they are connected, and it makes a difference how life did start. This is correct. That is why a baby needs a mother, to keep it alive until it can survive on it's own. That is life coming from life. That is also why a cell needs all of it's parts before it can live. Just having the chemicals there is not enough.

The evidence supports creation. The design supports creation. Science has not shown that life can happen on it's own, and the fossils support creation. I go with the evidence.

iNow I watched the video. I have seen this sort of stuff over and over again, but they never answer the question. The simplest answer is this, science does not need to do the experiments. It should happen on it's own. If what science is saying is correct, and there has been billions of years we should be seeing this all over the place. Maybe even on other planets. But as the video says there are many intermediate steps that science doesn't know about, and this doesn't explain, the instructions in DNA. The myth is from science saying that life is nothing but a mixture of chemicals. An example of this is a person that is healthy but has be strangled to death. This person is no longer life, but all the chemicals are there. They even have made all the parts, everything is there for life. But even science can't make this person alive again. A baby survives because , the mother gives it life until everything is ready for the baby to survive on it's own. Life comes from life. So science with all it's explanations and stories, has nothing until they can show life coming from non life and have had nothing to do with it( such as an experiment). So they have find it some place else, and then prove it started on it's own.

It is one thing to play with DNA ( which already there). In time science will be able to do many amazing, things by playing with it. But you have to realize that you are using intelligence to do that. Also equipment, and years of research. None of that is happening on it's own. If you take this one step further, science is trying to see if they can make life happen, like it was supposed to do in the beginning. But science by doing the experiments can only show that science can create life in a lab. It doesn't show that it could happen on it's own. An example of this is, making bread. By getting all the ingredients together and baking it, you can ownly show that it took intelligence to make bread. You have not shown that it could happen on it's own.

Actually science uses the word transition in a wrong way here. Science assumes that one animal became another over time. Assumption should not be part of science. If you are going to create millions of creatures. One way of doing that is to create one then , make a little tweak, and then make another. That is why you see animals that are similar. But in the real world a dog is a dog and a cat a cat. That goes for plants as well. This is also the same with horses, we don't see one evolve into another type of animal, say a camel. But we do see completed animals that reproduce the same kind. The transitional ones are the ones that are incomplete. Like it might start out as a cell then produce some how a bit of bone material. But not in any shape we would recognize. It would not know how to make a leg, evolution has no direction to go. So this bone material would just be that. No ends to fit another bone, no tendons, no nerves, no muscles etc. This also would not be placed in the correct place, so you would have to have all the millions of transitions before you could ever get something complete if it ever did at all. None of this is in the fossil record. You realized also to be able to work legs, need all the nerves to be wired to the brain and then the brain would have to know how to work all these legs, you would also have to have the brain working with eye sight, so it is useful to get around with. So you have to ask yourself, how did all these parts come about all at once and working with some amazing gates these animals have. How did the skull form to fit the eye, to protect it. Did it do one side first then the other? How did evolution know where to place an eye? All this should be in the fossil record, but none is found. As for abiogenesis. When I first heard about this I thought , science is getting closer to creation all the time. This is from the dictionary. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thats OK not to know, but to base a theory and teach it then call it fact, when science doesn't even know how it works. Or if it could even happen at all. Science has to ignore the evidence that we do have, to come up with this. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No that is not what I am saying. The science is OK in most cases. It is the interpretation of the science that is in question. It is what you think a certain fossil means. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Many of these types of viruses or retroviruses, served a purpose when animals became too plentiful, or populations increased to unhealthy levels. There are many safe guards like this. Now people are pushing the territory of wildlife, people use unsafe methods, of dealing with the slaughter and feeding of animals , now we have things like swine flu, mad cow, Bird flu etc. Also people live is slums,wars and weather changes, and people build large cities, where transmission of these kind of illness spread easily. People are not distributed the way they should be. All the people alive right now, could fit in the state of Texas. There is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone, but half the world is undernourished.

This is very general, so bare with me while I say a few broad statements. The first is that science doesn't know how life started!( I know this is not about evolution) But this is important. If science cannot prove that life started on it's own, then evolution as we know is a total myth. The reason is that , no matter, what was created, there is the question , how much life was created? All of it as in special creation of each type of animal, or just the start maybe as single cell? But then you have ask was all life pre programed in that first cell to create all the life we see. So the start to life, is very important. Science can not say that life started on it's own.( so they can't disprove creation) And if you look at what life is even as a single cell, there are many parts to a cell. So this evolution of a cell, the parts would have to evolve at the same time but in parallel to one another, in the same place, inside the cell, but these parts are needed to make a cell live. So that is a catch 22 situation, how can a cell live with out it's parts, but how can a cell evolve if it is not alive, because it needs completed parts to live. Also a cell doesn't know it has to survive, so how does it know how to divide, or reproduce? That is not a simple procedure. Science can only assume that it knew how to do this. Also the evidence that we know is that life comes from life there is nothing else, never has anyone seen anything different than that. Or found anything that would dispute that. Now , on evolution. If you forget all the evidence , on the start to life, evolution on it's own does not work. This first cell with or without DNA, has to become all life we see including plants and animals. In the fossil record there is no evidence of cells producing partial bits of bone, ( not completed bits, because that would take many tries to get something that is useful) Also the fact that complete systems of heart, lungs, muscles, veins, nerves, blood, and brain all have to be complete before anyone of the parts is useful. This is another catch22 situation. So if a heart started to form , why would that be kept if there is no blood , no muscles, etc, there to make these parts of any value? If anything you should see the millions of tries before any of these parts came about. But what you see in the fossil record is completed animals. ( with out the transitional ones) But what would you expect to find if things were created? Completed animals, with complete systems working. That is what there is evidence for. Sudden appearances , of life, in a completed form. The evidence supports creation it does not support evolution or non creation start to life. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged There is variety in animals. DNA allows that. If basketball players were the only ones that had a good life, eventually, the tendency for tall children and adults, would happen. This happens now, with isolated tribes of people. We see pygmy's and Zulu warriors. Extremes on height. But they are still all human. This what we see today.