Evolution

[Darwinian]

Sorry, I should have been more detailed. I'm trying to point out the origins of life. The reason I asked this is because the sun gives energy, but this can't produce complex systems

This is demonstrably incorrect. The Sun drives practically all life on this planet. As long as life has a source of energy then complexity can and inevitably does arise! Look around you!

you need that first single system to transform random energy into kinetic energy.

Pure pseudoscience that means absolutely nothing.

I guess there really is no point in asking. The fact that evolution is based on life sprouting from non-life is a fairy tale. Life can only come from life.

Who says so? You? Has it ever occurred to you that you are simply wrong. And anyway, evolution is NOT based on life sprouting from non life. That's abiogenesis, evolution is what happens once life has begun!

Now you might be saying things like, "stupid creationist, so what about his God making Adam and Eve from dirt? That's Abiogenesis!" Adam was not alive until God gave him the breath of life. Life comes from life. He was nothing more than dead meat, a lifeless composition of elements. The 59 elements of the human body can all be found on the earth's crust. And when the body dies, it turns into dirt again. Convenient, huh? Or is that just another one of the millions of "coincidences"?

How can it be a coincidence that life on Earth is composed of elements and minerals that are found on Earth? What are you talking about?

[Brian37]

"Life can only come from life"

You must have taken your biology class at Sunday school. Unfortunately in credible science classes for you, that will get you the F you deserve for such a stupid statement.

Humans are made up of DNA, DNA is made up of atoms. Atoms as individual atoms are NOT alive. There, you have life arising from non living things.

Just like a Hurricane isn't born from another hurricane, but a multitude of non cognitive factors in the environment. The first strands of DNA were a result of climate and conditions of individual atoms in a natural unthinking process, just like a hurricane can form under the right conditions. DNA does not need an inventor anymore than a hurricane does.

[Cyberman]

"...Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories." -Ernst Mayr, Professor of Zoology at Harvard University

Ooh, a quotemine! StimboLovesAQuotemine! Mayr also said

There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that "the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials", he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomena or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin's theories.

Mayr has also said

We live in an age that places great value on molecular biology. Let me emphasize the equal importance of evolutionary biology. The very survival of man on this globe may depend on a correct understanding of the evolutionary forces and their application to man. The meaning of race, the impact of mutation, whether spontaneous or radiation-induced, of hybridization, of competition - all these evolutionary phenomena are of the utmost importance for the human species. Fortunately the large number of biologists who continue to cultivate the evolutionary vineyard is an indication of how many biologists realize this; we must acquire an understanding of the operation of the various factors of evolution not only for the sake of understanding our universe, but indeed very directly for the sake of the future on man.

and

The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology.

(Source: Gaither's Dictionary of Scientific Quotations, pp 712)

[The Grand Nudger]

So your claim would then be that the second law of thermodynamics stands at odds to abiogenesis, not evolution? In which case, it matters very little how you propose that abiogenesis occurred (by any natural or fairy tale means abiogensis is abiogenesis). You are forced to invoke miracles, and since you've decided that this is the thing to do, all "science" was pretense (conversely, you could toss out the very law which you feel makes our origins impossible..it's your choice, it's your head you're grinding into mush, not mine).

(as to your last bit about the breath of life, wouldn't that make a god a living breathing thing? Living breathing things aren't usually ethereal....and they can (generally) be killed...I like this concept)

[Cyberman]

It would also require an atmosphere to be present wherever this god operated, seriously limiting 'his' sphere of influence. I think I like the idea myself.

[libalchris]

Sorry, I should have been more detailed. I'm trying to point out the origins of life. The reason I asked this is because the sun gives energy, but this can't produce complex systems, you need that first single system to transform random energy into kinetic energy.

wrong. You observe the sun creating complex systems every time a hurricane forms.

That can be demonstrated I guess there really is no point in asking. The fact that evolution is based on life sprouting from non-life is a fairy tale. Life can only come from life.

because you said so? Is that it?E experiments have demonstrated the plausibility of life arising from non-living organic matter. Improbability? Absolutely, but still completely plausible (especially considering the number of planets in the universe and the amount of time the universe has existed)

Now you might be saying things like, "stupid creationist, so what about his God making Adam and Eve from dirt? That's Abiogenesis!" Adam was not alive until God gave him the breath of life. Life comes from life. He was nothing more than dead meat, a lifeless composition of elements. The 59 elements of the human body can all be found on the earth's crust. And when the body dies, it turns into dirt again. Convenient, huh? Or is that just another one of the millions of "coincidences"?

Actually organic life does exactly what is predicted after death, it breaks down into simpler carbon molecules. Oh, and I might mention something that completely destroys your whole argument: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...41984.html
Scientists have created a synthetic cell. So, no god is needed to "give the breath of life" to organic life forms. All life is simply chemical reactions, no god required

May I mention that abiogenesis is completely different from evolution? Evolution is true whether abiogenesis is or not. You don't need to show the origin of the first cell to know that all living life today share that first cell as a common ancestor.

[Zen Badger]

You also want to have a look at chaos theory laddie.

[Minimalist]

Sorry, I should have been more detailed. I'm trying to point out the origins of life.

We do not know the origins of life yet. Notwithstanding that simple fact, I feel quite relaxed about dismissing your fairy tale about your god playing in the dirt.

Eventually science will come up with an answer.

You will not.

[Brian37]

Sorry, I should have been more detailed. I'm trying to point out the origins of life.

We do not know the origins of life yet. Notwithstanding that simple fact, I feel quite relaxed about dismissing your fairy tale about your god playing in the dirt.

Eventually science will come up with an answer.

You will not.

Huh? Yes we DO know the origins of life. DNA.

That would be like saying "We don't know the origins of rain".

We don't know the exact year the first strands of DNA came about, but science has given it a range in terms of years. But there was no "first strand" there was a climate that allowed tons of strands, just like conditions in the atmosphere will lead to multiple clouds that lead to a storm that produces rain.

It is better to think of evolution not as "firsts" but in terms of transitions which can happen on a mass scale as much as it involves individuals. Just like a snow storm is the result of a collective climate and not the result of one cloud or one snow flake, but of multiple transitions involving multiple factors.

DNA is the origin of life.

[Anomalocaris]

We do not know the origins of life yet. Notwithstanding that simple fact, I feel quite relaxed about dismissing your fairy tale about your god playing in the dirt.

Eventually science will come up with an answer.

You will not.

Huh? Yes we DO know the origins of life. DNA.
.......

DNA is the origin of life.

One would think the origin of life refers to a process, not a thing. DNA is a thing used by organisms to replicate a particular set of protein synthesis required for its own function in another organism. It is no more a process whereby life originated than Windows or Mac OS is the process whereby computers originated.

We can envision at a high level several processes that can bring about life, and some of the more pormising ones involve life without DNA as intermediate steps.

So not only is not DNA the origin of life, it is not even necessarily required for life.