Scientists announce a breakthrough in determining life's origin on Earth—and maybe Mars

[Bungle_Bear]

Was Israel?

Yes

What does our constitution have to do with it?

The first amendment to your constitution has some very specific words about religion. I suggest you read it.

Show me Israel's constitution.

It doesn't have one.

Do you think God waited for a constitution to be written, before He founded a nation?

No gods have ever founded a nation.

 

[Astrid]

Molecules to man is a valid origin's hypothesis that is being scientifically investigated. Fish to man is ludicrous and the orgs that are pushing it are well aware that they are promoting nonsense.

Why do you say it is ludicrous

 

[Frank Robert]

Why do you say it is ludicrous

Because it misrepresents evolution. Fish were only one ancestor of man so why start there. If DI, AIG et. al were not devious in order to present evolution as laughable they would go back to the first ancestors of fish, or animals that were closely related to fish.

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted

 

[Astrid]

Because it misrepresents evolution. Fish were only one ancestor of man so why start there. If DI, AIG et. al were not devious in order to present evolution as laughable they would go back to the first ancestors of fish, or animals that were closely related to fish.

Ah ok...

 

[AV1611VET]

Because it misrepresents evolution.

No, it doesn't.

What's wrong with using a subset to narrow something down?

 

[Frank Robert]

No, it doesn't.

What's wrong with using a subset to narrow something down?

Because of the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution of apes and humans did not start with a fish. Not agreeing with the science is not a valid reason to misrepresent the science. The only logical reason that the actual scientists, some with impressive credentials, from DI and AIG et al would allow such misrepresentation is to make evolution sound laughable.

I an not against anyone's religious beliefs, but I am against organizations like DI and AIG making knowingly false statements about evolution. I bet you can quote the biblical passages that against making false statements.

​

 

[AV1611VET]

Because of the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution of apes and humans did not start with a fish.

And in the example I gave in Post 107, the alphabet does not start with the letter G.

But saying "G to U" is narrowing the playing field, without damaging the entirety of the alphabet.

(What's so hard about this?)

 

[Frank Robert]

And in the example I gave in Post 107, the alphabet does not start with the letter G.

But saying "G to U" is narrowing the playing field, without damaging the entirety of the alphabet.

(What's so hard about this?)

Why do anti-evolution sites massage common ancestry as to provoke laughter in their primary audience? Some people believe that the DI, AIG, et al dissent against is an unfortunate misunderstanding of facts. I do not belong to that group. DI and their sister orgs know exactly what they are doing.

I am agnostic, I don't know if there is a God and if God there is I think he would have provided natural laws to run the universe(s) because Occam's razor.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do anti-evolution sites massage common ancestry as to provoke laughter in their primary audience? Some people believe that the DI, AIG, et al dissent against is an unfortunate misunderstanding of facts. I do not belong to that group. DI and their sister orgs know exactly what they are doing.

Could we get off DI and AiG and all the other organizations for a moment?

Let's talk ABCs.

Is G-U a subset of A-Z?

If so, what's the deal here with fish-man being a subset of molecules-man?

 

[Frank Robert]

Could we get off DI and AiG and all the other organizations for a moment?

Let's talk ABCs.

Is G-U a subset of A-Z?

If so, what's the deal here with fish-man being a subset of molecules-man?

What would be the point of saying G-U came for A-Z? Humans evolved from a long line of ancestors beginning with the LUCA with fish along the way. What does it mean for particular religious denominations to claim Darwinists believe that humans came from fish and ignoring the rest of evolution which btw they deny. What point are they trying to make? Are they trying to discuss science, if not what is that they want? What meaning do they assign to the claim "fish to humans"?

Btw: This rat-like creature, the sloath tooth, is the earliest ancestor of mankind.

 

[Neogaia777]

Both evolution and special creation can both be true.

See here: Solution to the creation/evolution debate...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Both evolution and special creation can both be true.

See here: Solution to the creation/evolution debate...?

God Bless!

To summarize a portion of it for this discussion, it proposes that there were two races, one created, and one made through evolution, that began intermixing, or interbreeding right immediately before the flood, and also afterwards, etc, and that the floods true purpose (which was regional) was to completely wipe out almost all of the specially created people/race, with the exception of just a few, that began interbreeding and intermixing with the evolved race after that, which cause their bloodline to dwindle after that. The flood was regional, and happened around 5700 BC, in the region of Mesopotamia, when that area was all very green and fertile, and more regular type floods were common there, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

To summarize, it proposes that there were two races, one created, and one made through evolution, that began intermixing, or interbreeding right immediately before the flood, and also afterwards, etc, and that the floods true purpose (which was regional) was to completely wipe out almost all of the specially created people/race, with the exception of just a few, that began interbreeding and intermixing with the evolved race after that, which cause their bloodline to dwindle after that. The flood was regional, and happened around 5700 BC, in the region of Mesopotamia, when that area was all very green and fertile, and more regular type floods were common there, etc...

God Bless!

Much of our jumps in advancement after that, came from the specially created people/race, etc.

But who were all but entirely wiped out by the regional flood in that area or region, etc.

And those who were left over, had no choice but to breed with the evolved race, which caused their race to all but disappear, etc.

Some of the giants, or Nephilim, or mighty men/ones after that, might have been by trying to keep that bloodline pure still yet, etc.

Also the giants in certain lands after that, etc. Might have been a product of selective breeding from after the specially created race after that, etc, who were all but wiped out by a flood before that, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

God did not want the specially created race to intermix or interbreed with the evolved race after being expelled from the Garden of Eden, but wanted them to establish their own nation that would rule over all others, and the world after that, etc, but that's not what happened, etc, so God wiped almost all of them out with a flood, etc.

The fact that that area or region is now a desert now after that, might have been because it was flooded for awhile, because it was green and fertile land or fertile soil, before that, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

God did not want the specially created race to intermix or interbreed with the evolved race after being expelled from the Garden of Eden, but wanted them to establish their own nation that would rule over all others, and the world after that, etc, but that's not what happened, etc, so God wiped almost all of them out with a flood, etc.

The fact that that area or region is now a desert now after that, might have been because it was flooded for awhile, because it was green and fertile land or fertile soil, before that, etc.

God Bless!

This theme of God the Spirit wanting to establish a special people who would rule over all the others was/still would be a consistent theme with God the Spirit still after that still, etc, (after the Garden of Eden, etc) but none of it ever worked out the way it was planned after that, etc.

Then we get to Jesus, etc.

God Bless!

 

[46AND2]

God did not want the specially created race to intermix or interbreed with the evolved race after being expelled from the Garden of Eden, but wanted them to establish their own nation that would rule over all others, and the world after that, etc, but that's not what happened, etc, so God wiped almost all of them out with a flood, etc.

The fact that that area or region is now a desert now after that, might have been because it was flooded for awhile, because it was green and fertile land or fertile soil, before that, etc.

God Bless!

If one believes that god is omnipotent and omniscient, it is paradoxical to state something happened that he didn't want to happen.

 

[Neogaia777]

If one believes that god is omnipotent and omniscient, it is paradoxical to state something happened that he didn't want to happen.

Well, how do you explain God in the OT's expecting certain things to happen (or not happen) that either did happen, or else did not happen in the OT then?

I believe in God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit (God the Spirit), and in only one of these always being fully omniscient from the very beginning always, etc, for it is the only way I can see of explaining some things that happened both with God's chosen people in the OT, and with whom I believe to be God the Spirit in the OT, etc.

Or to put it bluntly, I don't believe Jesus was referring to God in the OT most of the time when He talked about God the Father being both His and our Father, and most definitely was not doing this most of the time especially when He used the term "Our Heavenly Father", or "our Father who both was/is, or who has always resided in Heaven", etc.

But, believe whatever you like I guess.

God Bless!

 

[Lost4words]

Scientists announce a breakthrough | Psyc.org

"Scientists at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution announced today that ribonucleic acid (RNA), an analog of DNA that was likely the first genetic material for life, spontaneously forms on basalt lava glass. Such glass was abundant on Earth 4.35 billion years ago. Similar basalts of this antiquity survive on Mars today.

...Led by Elisa Biondi, the study shows that long RNA molecules, 100-200 nucleotides in length, form when nucleoside triphosphates do nothing more than percolate through basaltic glass."

"Basaltic glass was everywhere on Earth at the time," remarked Stephen Mojzsis, an Earth scientist who also participated in the study. "For several hundred million years after the Moon formed, frequent impacts coupled with abundant volcanism on the young planet formed molten basaltic lava, the source of the basalt glass. Impacts also evaporated water to give dry land, providing aquifers where RNA could have formed."

"The beauty of this model is its simplicity. It can be tested by highschoolers in chemistry class," said Jan Špacek, who was not involved in this study but who develops instrument to detect alien genetic polymers on Mars. "Mix the ingredients, wait for a few days and detect the RNA.

...Thus, this work completes a path that creates RNA from small organic molecules that were almost certainly present on the early Earth. A single geological model moves from one and two carbon molecules to give RNA molecules long enough to support Darwinian evolution."

“By understanding the fundamental complexity of life, in the laboratory, we can start to estimate the chances of life on other planets and determine the likelihood that planets such as Mars either had or still have the potential to harbor life.”​

The answer is plainly in sight....God created everything.

 

[46AND2]

Well, how do you explain God in the OT's expecting certain things to happen (or not happen) that either did happen, or else did not happen in the OT then?

The way I explain it is that it is written and interpreted by men. So either the the authors didn't consider that paradox, or the readers are mistaken about god's tri-omni attributes.

I believe in God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit (God the Spirit), and in only one of these always being fully omniscient from the very beginning always, etc, for it is the only way I can see of explaining some things that happened both with God's chosen people in the OT, and with whom I believe to be God the Spirit in the OT, etc.

Let's put it this way. If the creator of the universe is both omnipotent and omniscient, then everything that happens in the universe is just the way he wanted it. Else, he'd have made it differently.

Or to put it bluntly, I don't believe Jesus was referring to God in the OT most of the time when He talked about God the Father being both His and our Father, and most definitely was not doing this most of the time especially when He used the term "Our Heavenly Father", or "our Father who has always resided in Heaven", etc.

But, believe whatever you like I guess.

God Bless!

What I would "like" to believe is irrelevant, imo, as it is not a choice.