Origin of Life

AV1611VET · Nov 29, 2025

dlamberth said:
It's religion that they preach as if it's science. But it's not science. Thus pseudoscience.

Just like science dispels a myth, "religion" should dispel science.

In the case of this thread, when an experiment is done under the assumption of a "primitive earth," the Bible should alert us that said experiment is being done under false pretenses.

AV1611VET · Nov 29, 2025

Ophiolite said:
That is a remarkably foolish statement. Martha's lies had a comparatively small impact upon society's legally acceptable behaviour, for which she was appropriately punished. Hovind's lies impact upon important aspects of reality which are capable of corrupting people's perception of reality. Your lies (on thalidomide, the renaming of Pluto, etc) are less troublesome since they are attributable to lack of critical thinking, rather than deliberate deception.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 29, 2025

AV1611VET said:
Just like science dispels a myth, "religion" should dispel science.

In the case of this thread, when an experiment is done under the assumption of a "primitive earth," the Bible should alert us that said experiment is being done under false pretenses.

To parrot your own words back at you: You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

AV1611VET · Nov 29, 2025

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
To parrot your own words back at you: You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Thanks -- and here it is:

Miller & Urey might fool you guys, but when they have to reduce the earth's beginning to a "primitive earth," they are liars and the truth is not in them.

This is how science operates.

They start with a trainwreck, then has mother nature (or themselves) fixing it over time.

You can usually tell when a scientist is lying ... his lips are moving.

There are exceptions, of course.

But they are just that.

Exceptions.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 29, 2025

AV1611VET said:
Thanks -- and here it is:

Miller & Urey might fool you guys, but when they have to reduce the earth's beginning to a "primitive earth," they are liars and the truth is not in them.

This is how science operates.

They start with a trainwreck, then has mother nature (or themselves) fixing it over time.

You can usually tell when a scientist is lying ... his lips are moving.

There are exceptions, of course.

But they are just that.

Exceptions.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

AV1611VET · Nov 29, 2025

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

I'm not obligated to sit in a classroom and parrot what I'm fed in order to placate the system with good grades.

When I go to bed at night, I'm not guilty of having misled someone by telling them the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 29, 2025

AV1611VET said:
I'm not obligated to sit in a classroom and parrot what I'm fed in order to placate the system with good grades.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

AV1611VET said:
When I go to bed at night, I'm not guilty of having misled someone by telling them the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River.

No, of course not. But you are guilty of saying that it was created by something as lubricious as the world being broken apart a few thousand years ago.

... which further doesn't make sense when the San Andreas Fault Line is a MUCH better example of that happening.

Shemjaza · Nov 30, 2025

AV1611VET said:
So no one takes her cookbooks literally?

Some very important content you snipped from my quote... it's almost like it invalidates your entire analogy.

Firstlightdawn · 2026-01-20T01:31:48-0600

d taylor said:
Life did not have a beginning, as God did not have a beginning.

The first Planck moment is the earliest instant where the universe is “physical” enough for the laws of physics to operate and describe anything. Before that moment, physics breaks down; after that moment, physics turns on.

Firstlightdawn · 2026-01-20T01:34:14-0600

AV1611VET said:
So no one takes her cookbooks literally?

So we should not take you serious?

Firstlightdawn · 2026-01-20T01:38:08-0600

AV1611VET said:
Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to federal investigators about a stock sale in the ImClone Systems case.

My son has to be careful with this because of the companies he works for.

d taylor · 2026-01-20T07:23:44-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
The first Planck moment is the earliest instant where the universe is “physical” enough for the laws of physics to operate and describe anything. Before that moment, physics breaks down; after that moment, physics turns on.

-

Is God Life.

Firstlightdawn · 2026-01-20T10:12:26-0600

d taylor said:
Is God Life.

Science can not prove or disprove God.

truthuprootsevil · 2026-01-20T11:25:47-0600

AV1611VET said:
In this video, Kent Hovind pwns the origin of life from unicelluar organisms:

I especially like his "frog in a blender" example, starting at 07:25.

You can have all the ingredients of life in a single blender, but you can't bring it back to life.

So true, the theory of abiogenesis makes no sense to me. Chemicals / none life / combined and through millions of years produce life. They had to say millions of years in order for it to even be feasible to them. Yet before they even come a tad to the existence of the creator they will hold on to this assumption and teach it.

The theory of panspermia makes more sense. At least it is giving leeway The entity we refer to as God being in existence life because he is life.

Are We from Outer Space? A Critical Review of the Panspermia Hypothesis - PMC Are We from Outer Space? A Critical Review of the Panspermia Hypothesis - PMC

What is the theory of panspermia? | Astronomy.com What is the theory of panspermia? | Astronomy.com

The Bible says God formed a man from the dust chemicals of the earth and placed him in the garden in the East of Eden which he had prepared. Not only did God form man but God breathed the breath of life into man. When you read all the other scriptures concerning creation man is the only one God formed himself and man is the only one God breathed the breath of life into. All other life forms on earth God told the Earth to bring forth or the waters to bring forth.

Shemjaza · 2026-01-21T04:38:42-0600

truthuprootsevil said:
So true, the theory of abiogenesis makes no sense to me. Chemicals / none life / combined and through millions of years produce life. They had to say millions of years in order for it to even be feasible to them. Yet before they even come a tad to the existence of the creator they will hold on to this assumption and teach it.

The theory of panspermia makes more sense. At least it is giving leeway The entity we refer to as God being in existence life because he is life.

Are We from Outer Space? A Critical Review of the Panspermia Hypothesis - PMC Are We from Outer Space? A Critical Review of the Panspermia Hypothesis - PMC

What is the theory of panspermia? | Astronomy.com What is the theory of panspermia? | Astronomy.com

The Bible says God formed a man from the dust chemicals of the earth and placed him in the garden in the East of Eden which he had prepared. Not only did God form man but God breathed the breath of life into man. When you read all the other scriptures concerning creation man is the only one God formed himself and man is the only one God breathed the breath of life into. All other life forms on earth God told the Earth to bring forth or the waters to bring forth.

The mechanisms withing life are the same chemical processes as outside life.

Plants turning air, lifeless nutrients and sunlight into more life are complicated chemical reactions. There's no miraculous spark missing from our understanding.

The exact pathway is mysterious and may never be known, but increasing complexity, spontaneous polymerisation and imperfect replication are tricially demonstrated.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Origin of Life

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Similar threads