Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Anomalocaris]

Wow you just ignorant to a whole different level.

Nahhh, she is egomaniacal to a different level. But her ignorance is nothing unusual for a Christian.

[justin]

Wow you just ignorant to a whole different level.

Nahhh, she is egomaniacal to a different level. But her ignorance is nothing unusual for a Christian.

kinda of sad. Reminds me of how much i enjoy being faithless, no B.S agendas to fullfill

[Mononoke]

Even if the rest of your post had anything at all to stand on (Darkstar has shown the problems with it), the bolded section doesn't follow. Why Jehovah? How do you know that whatever supernatural god created life is still around, loves humans, interferes with our affairs, etc.? What makes your god the right one? Since when were all the other creation myths, some of which probably make more sense than Genesis, able to be dismissed out of hand in favour of the Christian one?

ALTER2EGO -to- MONONOKE:
You're the one attempting to rebut, so go right ahead and prove to this forum that there is no Jehovah. Start by explaining how the common ancestor came to life by itself so that "evolution" could then supposedly occur.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I did not try to disprove Jehovah nor do I intend to try to do so here. Disproving Jehovah does not matter. What matters is your reasoning for picking Jehovah out of all other gods; I simply pointed out that you had not given such reasoning yet and asked for you to do so.

[downbeatplumb]

This was a good watch about abiogenesis.
A theory which is far from "refuted"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

[Alter2Ego]

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY is chained to abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously).

That's not what the abiogenesis theory says. Your entire argument falls apart here.

ALTER2EGO -to- TIBERIUS:
Then I'm sure you will tell us all the correct definition of "abiogenesis theory." Simply telling me that my definition is wrong, and then not providing an alternative definition amounts to giving your personal opinion. The forum is waiting for you to provide the "correct" definition of "abiogenesis."

[Kayenneh]

The forum is waiting for you to provide the "correct" definition of "abiogenesis."

The forum? Wow, you think really highly of yourself, if you really consider yourself to be the forum! No, you're the only one waiting.

[downbeatplumb]

Things most likely did not spontaneously move from non-life to life, it was probably a gradual process that took time and the right set of circumstances.

The reason we cant find traces of the first life form is that the second life form ate it.

[Joel]

It wasn't Primordial Soup -> Lightning -> Life
It's more God Primordial Soup -> God Lightning -> God Proteins/Amino Acids -> God Time -> God 'life' (living cells)

[A_Nony_Mouse]

People who get so hung up on the origin of life beyond a scientific interest usually do not realize just how hard it is to define what is meant by life as distinct from non-life. Crystals spontaneously form and grow. Why are they not alive?

Because we do not know how it first happened we do not know it is extremely rare or just uncommon. It is reasonable to assume spontaneously formed life today would be so primitive that the established forms consider it food and it is always eaten before a billion years of evolution can occur to make it competitive.

For all we know it is so simple that some day some researcher might spill a little molybdenum sulphate or something not as common like iron oxide into a vial of amino acids and suddenly there is self-replicating life.

Until we figure out how it happened we really can't say much about it. That we includes theists claiming it required a god.

[Love]

People who get so hung up on the origin of life beyond a scientific interest usually do not realize just how hard it is to define what is meant by life as distinct from non-life. Crystals spontaneously form and grow. Why are they not alive?

I think it is fair to assume that most biologists consider "life" to be the following: a biological system of self-replicating molecules. According to the available scientific evidence on the theory of evolution by natural selection, it appears that most biologists interpret the prokaryotic cell as being the last universal common ancestor. I am very skeptical that there will ever be a scientific consensus where all biologists will interpret the available evidence in exactly the same manner, much like the situation in quantum mechanics (multiple interpretations of the available scientific evidence).