Hi all
I still say that in my opinion you require your own theory of the creation, I am not saying my theory is fact because we do not know and can not prove who,how,or why life was created on this planet, we now know why it can exist on Earth but that is all.
No what I quoted is my thoughts on the subject and like all matters regarding the creation can not be proved. I am atheist because I believe that their is only one reason why I am on this planet,and that is to pass on my genes and prolong the existence of my race of Homo sapien.The reason for life on the planet is not known. And that I do not believe their is a mythical super being out there that created everything on and beyond our solar system. and for no other reason, it is not my ambition to try prove to a theist that their beliefs are wrong, because that would be unethical, I do enjoy a debate with a theist who can debate without getting upset, but as we all must agree that what we now know about life on earth, matter involving the ageing and dating of earthly things we think we know they are on a losing wicket,but will we ever be able to prove it.
We know what was required for the building blocks of life, but we will never know from were they came. my theory is they came very early on in the formation of this planet we call earth,
Best regards
Rex.

(January 14, 2009 at 9:23 am)peregrine Wrote: I still say that you require your own theory of the creation, I am not saying my theory is fact because we do not know and can not prove who,how,or why life was created on this planet, we now know why it can exist on Earth but that is all.

Not so ... maybe you just don't give a rat's arse. You can still rject the idea of God as frakking stupid and not know a whole lot of science.

Kyu

Hi Kyuuketsuki.
Please don't burst a blood vessel.My knowledge on science is very limited like it is on many subjects that I am not familiar with, but I have now earned my degree in life that they don't give out from a few years study .
If your knowledge will assist me I will listen and learn from you. you see I always was given to believe that someone opinion was one own belief and not a statement of what others should follow or even accept.
Have a nice relaxing day.
Rex
PS I have edited my post as I forgot to add my opinion to the quote. (Sorry)

Hi peregrine,

I will grant you there are quite a few atheists (including myself) that have a great interest in science, but it is not a prerequisite by any means. I will certainly grant you that the vast majority of scientists are agnostic atheists, but there are also quite a few deists, pantheists and theists.

As for your hypothesis, is there any scientific paper supporting your claim that you are aware of?

Hi Leo
For me to state my theory I must have read about it somewhere as I would not have know about the life that lives on earth without the need for oxygen,were I do not know, I in my first post Have given my reasons for my beliefs on why I rejected theism. It seams that my thoughts that all atheist must have their own theory about the creation is wrong, and I accept it. this is what debate is about finding the truth in a adult way without reverting to personal attacks especially on a new member unused to the terminology of debating in an atheist environment.
Regards
Rex.

Hi peregrine,

I hope you recognize that Kyu's less than tactful response is not a personal attack as I can assure you that is not the case.

Abiogenesis has a number of hypotheses that has a lot of scientific support and unlike Ben Stein I will not go around spouting that life came from lightning hitting a puddle of mud. However, there is no reason at all for me to accept abiogenesis in whatever form given that the evidence in favor for one form is getting better, but to me is in no way shape or form conclusive.

A lot of lifeforms on the planet have evolved into using oxygen because next to hydrogen and helium, nitrogen and carbon dioxide it is abundandly available. I agree that the first life on this planet was probably anaerobic, probably even obligate anaerobic, which means they would die when coming into contact with unbound oxygen. We still have lifeforms around like that. Instead of Oxygen they use sulfate, nitrate, iron, manganese, mercury, or carbon monoxide for their resporatory system. The first oxygen using lifeforms probably evolved millions of years later.

Hi Peregrine,

I am not an atheist but I think I understand the points you're making, and correct me if I'm wrong. I am very interested in how life began on this earth, especially if I leave a supernatural creator out of this. I can't imagine anyone who likes debating on forums like this one, not being at least a bit curious about the emergence of life.

When we read people's replies they can come over as unfriendly or hostile even than they may be intended.

I suggest that you watch Origins by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Not sure if I have already posted it in the Videos forum but if not I'll try and find it.

Thank you all for your understanding help,the last thing you want to do is upset members when you are new to a forum.
Regards
Rex.

Regarding the origins of life on Earth I am content to say that no one can be certain,but I am definately sure it was not the biblical God who created everything ex-nihilo.In my opinion the biblical God and all gods fall under the category of myth therefore I do not see him/her/or it as the first cause of anything.If anything man created God not the other way around.

The origins of life in my opinion are one of sciences works in progress and although I dont understand it fully now I am content to say that I dont know and take the evidence as it presents itself.